Appeal found maintainable based on authority who issued order. Majority decision prevails.

The Tribunal determined that the appeal filed before it was maintainable as it concluded that the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, and not by the assumed Additional Collector of Customs. Despite initial disagreements among members, the majority view prevailed, leading to the appeal being deemed maintainable before the Tribunal for regular hearing.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
2. Capacity in which Shri K.S. Sivaraman passed the adjudication order.
3. Maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal

An interesting question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal has arisen in this case. The appellant filed an appeal to the Tribunal instead of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), presuming that the officer who passed the order was an Additional Collector of Customs. The Tribunal had to determine whether the appeal was correctly filed before it.

2. Capacity in which Shri K.S. Sivaraman passed the adjudication order

The primary issue was whether Shri K.S. Sivaraman passed the impugned order as a Deputy Collector of Customs or as an Additional Collector of Customs. The appellant argued that since Shri Sivaraman assumed charge as Additional Collector of Customs, Delhi w.e.f. 8-12-1986, the impugned order should be deemed to have been passed by him in that capacity. The respondent pointed out a letter dated 11-3-1988 from Shri Sivaraman stating he was only an Additional Collector of Customs when he adjudicated the case.

The Tribunal noted that there was no grade of Additional Collector of Customs in the Indian Customs and Central Excise service. It was only a designation given to some Deputy Collectors to handle the adjudication work of the Collector of Customs. The assumption of charge as Additional Collector did not mean that the original appointment as Deputy Collector ceased to exist.

3. Maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal

The Tribunal deliberated whether the appeal should lie with the Tribunal or the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The learned Consultant for the appellant relied on previous decisions of the Tribunal where it was held that orders passed by Shri Sivaraman were in his capacity as Additional Collector. However, the Tribunal observed that these decisions did not consider the dual capacity issue.

The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, as shown in the order, and therefore, the appeal should lie with the Collector of Customs (Appeals). Consequently, the appeal was returned as non-maintainable.

Separate Judgments:

Judgment by Member (T):
- The Member (T) concluded that Shri Sivaraman continued to be in the grade of Deputy Collector of Customs and Central Excise, and thus, the impugned order was passed by him in that capacity. The appeal should be to the Collector of Customs (Appeals).

Judgment by Member (J):
- The Member (J) disagreed, emphasizing that the fact that Shri Sivaraman was appointed as Additional Collector of Customs was admitted by both parties. Therefore, the appeal should lie with the Tribunal.

Third Member's Decision:
- The Senior Vice-President referred the matter to a third member to resolve the difference of opinion. The third member agreed with the Judicial Member, concluding that Shri Sivaraman was an Additional Collector at the relevant time. Thus, the appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable.

Conclusion:

The majority view was that the appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable. The Registry was directed to list the appeal for regular hearing.

---