1984 (6) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in these two appeals, the learned departmental representative Mr. C.L. Jain, came forward with a preliminary objection that the appeals are not maintainable. According to him, the Appellate Controller could not entertain the first appeals of the accountable person, as there is a bar available as per section 62 of the Act that unless duty was paid, no appeal would lie before the Appellate Controller. The learned departmental representative was, however, fair enough to admit that neither the revenue is in cross-objection nor has filed any appeal before us against the orders of the Appellate Controller. When it was pointed out to him that so far maintainability of appeals before the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal is authorised to entertai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gainst the above said two orders, it is only the accountable person who is in appeal before the Tribunal. f. These two appeals were filed as early as on 10-2-1983 before the Tribunal and till today, i.e., 28-6-1984, when the appeals came for hearing, there is no petition filed by the revenue before the Appellate Controller regarding maintainability of the appeals at his stage in the form of rectification, etc. g. So far as challenge of the accountable person to file an appeal before the Tribunal is concerned, it is clear as per section 63 that the account able person and the revenue, if not satisfied with the correctness of any order passed by the Appellate Controller, could come before the Tribunal in second appeal within stipulated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue supported the finding of the Appellate Controller and the Tribunal confirmed those findings that the appeal was not maintainable and it was against the said Tribunal's decision that the accountable person went before the High Court that their Lordships adjudicated the issue and answered the question in favour of the revenue that the appeal was not maintainable. The facts of the instant case are quite different. 5. Regarding request of the revenue that the appeals may not be heard for the present as they propose to move a petition before the Appellate Controller, we are unable to accede to its request because, as above said, it was as early as on 23-12-1982 that the two orders were passed by the Appellate Controller and the revenue is ....