Appeal maintainability under Customs law turns on whether the impugned communication is a Commissioner's adjudicating order.

The delay in filing the appeals was condoned because the appellants reasonably awaited a speaking order from the Commissioner after the refusal to amend the shipping bills had been communicated. However, an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 lies only against a decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as adjudicating authority. Letters issued by the Deputy or Assistant Commissioner merely conveying that decision were not appealable orders, so the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction and rejected both appeals as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned; (ii) whether appeals lay against letters issued by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner communicating the decision not to allow amendment of shipping bills.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was explained on the footing that the appellants were awaiting a speaking order from the Commissioner after the decision refusing amendment of the shipping bills had been communicated by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal accepted the explanation and proceeded to consider the appeals on the jurisdictional objection.

Conclusion: The delay in filing both appeals was condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether appeals lay against letters issued by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner communicating the decision not to allow amendment of shipping bills.

Analysis: Under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, an appeal lies from a decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority. The impugned appeals were directed against letters issued by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner communicating the decision of the Commissioner, and not against an adjudication order passed by the Commissioner as adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals and both appeals were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The procedural delay was excused, but the appeals failed on maintainability and were not entertained on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 lies only against a decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as adjudicating authority, and not against a communication issued by a subordinate officer conveying that decision.

---