Proper institution of revenue appeals under Customs review powers failed when a delegated officer filed them instead of the Collector.

Revenue appeals under the Customs Act were found incompetent because the statutory review direction under Section 129D(1) required the Collector of Customs to institute the applications under Section 129D(4). The papers showed that an Assistant Collector of Customs, acting on a letter of authority, filed the appeals instead of the Collector himself. As the filing officer was a further delegate and not the authority specified in the review direction, the Tribunal treated the appeals as not properly instituted and dismissed them without examining the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue appeals were maintainable when they were filed by an Assistant Collector of Customs acting under authorisation, instead of by the Collector of Customs who had been directed to act under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The appeals arose from a statutory direction issued under Section 129D(1) requiring the Collector of Customs to make applications under Section 129D(4). The papers showed that the appeals were filed by an Assistant Collector of Customs for the Tribunal Cell on the strength of a letter of authority, rather than by the Collector himself. Since the filing officer was a further delegate and not the adjudicating authority contemplated by the review direction, the appeals were treated as not having been instituted by the proper officer.

Conclusion: The appeals were held to be incompetent and were dismissed without examination of the merits.

---