https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81961 Appellate jurisdiction under the Customs Act depended on the officer's capacity when the adjudication order was passed, not merely on the designation printed below the signature. The majority found that the adjudicating officer was in fact functioning as Additional Collector, supported by the office order and the officer's own communication, so the order could not be treated as one made by a Deputy Collector because of an incorrect description. The statutory scheme treated the Collector as including the Additional Collector, and a departmental instruction could not alter the appellate forum or override the statute. The Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction and the appeal was maintainable. en-us Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:42:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81961 Appellate jurisdiction under the Customs Act depended on the officer's capacity when the adjudication order was passed, not merely on the designation printed below the signature. The majority found that the adjudicating officer was in fact functioning as Additional Collector, supported by the office order and the officer's own communication, so the order could not be treated as one made by a Deputy Collector because of an incorrect description. The statutory scheme treated the Collector as including the Additional Collector, and a departmental instruction could not alter the appellate forum or override the statute. The Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction and the appeal was maintainable. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81961