Supreme Court grants appeal due to jurisdictional error, ensures appellant's right to challenge orders.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside all previous orders due to a jurisdictional error resulting from a communication failure. The appellant, deprived of challenging the initial order rejecting their refund claim, was granted the opportunity to appeal. The Court directed the Assistant Collector to provide the appellant with the necessary documents for appeal and instructed the Additional Collector to decide the case on its merits without dismissing it for delay. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, rectifying the communication lapse and ensuring the appellant's right to appeal and challenge the orders.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Collector and Tribunal in dismissing the appeal.
2. Communication failure leading to the appellant being prevented from challenging the first order before higher authorities.
3. Correctness of the orders passed by the authorities.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the Appellate Collector's decision to dismiss the appellant's appeal for being without jurisdiction. The appellant, holding an industrial license for manufacturing Protein Extender, exported Soyabean Protein Concentrate treated as animal feed, resulting in the imposition of customs duty. The appellant paid under protest and later applied for a refund, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Collector and Tribunal, citing lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found that the appeal was not decided on merits, as the Assistant Collector's rejection of the refund claim earlier rendered the 1979 order without jurisdiction. However, the appellant was deprived of challenging the first order due to non-communication, leading to the Court's intervention to rectify the mistake.

2. The communication lapse between the authorities and the appellant resulted in the appellant being unaware of the earlier order's existence, thus impeding the appellant's right to appeal to higher authorities. The Supreme Court emphasized that no party should suffer due to a mistake made by the Court or authorities. The Court concluded that the appellant was justified in assuming the rejection of the refund claim in 1979, given the subsequent order passed by the Assistant Collector. The Court held that the appellant's inability to challenge the first order before higher authorities was due to the mistake committed by the Assistant Collector, warranting the Court's intervention to ensure the appellant's right to appeal.

3. In light of the above analysis, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders passed by all authorities, including the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector was directed to provide a copy of the 1978 order rejecting the appellant's claim within eight weeks for the appellant to challenge through appeal. The Additional Collector of Customs was instructed not to dismiss the appeal on grounds of delay but to decide it on merits in accordance with the law. The Court ordered that each party bear its own costs, thereby rectifying the communication failure and ensuring the appellant's right to appeal and challenge the orders on their merits.

---