2001 (10) TMI 414 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to entertain the appeal.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
4. Proper procedure for adjudication and communication of orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Appeal Before the Commissioner (Appeals):

The appellants filed an appeal against the Deputy Commissioner's communication rejecting their request for the destruction of obsolete components. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal under Section 129(E) of the Customs Act for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on the jurisdictional aspect. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the appeal was not maintainable as the communication was a decision by the Commissioner of Customs, conveyed by the Deputy Commissioner, and thus not appealable under Section 128 of the Customs Act.

2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to Entertain the Appeal:

The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention that the Deputy Commissioner, as the original authority, should have issued a notice with reasons for rejecting their request and followed principles of natural justice. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal on jurisdictional grounds. The Commissioner of Customs should have adjudicated the proceedings as per para 9.20 of the EXIM policy and relevant notifications. The communication by the Deputy Commissioner was not a proper order in law, making the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) maintainable.

3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:

The Tribunal emphasized that the Deputy Commissioner should have followed the principles of natural justice by issuing a proper notice and providing an opportunity for the appellants to be heard. The failure to do so rendered the Deputy Commissioner's communication non-est and not in accordance with the law. The Tribunal cited the Apex Court's judgment in Sheela Foam (P) Ltd. v. U.O.I., which held that an order required to be passed by an Assistant Collector in pursuance of directions from the Collector is appealable before the Collector (Appeals).

4. Proper Procedure for Adjudication and Communication of Orders:

The Tribunal referred to several judgments, including M/s. Triveni Alloys Ltd. v. CCE and Sonia Prints Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, which highlighted the necessity of following due process and issuing speaking orders. The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remanded to the original authority for de novo proceedings in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The original authority must initiate proper proceedings, provide an opportunity for the appellants to be heard, and issue a speaking order addressing their request for the destruction of imported and indigenous materials treated as waste/scrap.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter to the original authority for de novo proceedings. The original authority is directed to follow the principles of natural justice, initiate proper proceedings, and issue a speaking order on the appellants' application for de-bonding and destruction of their imported and indigenous items. The appeal No. C/278/00 was allowed by way of remand, and appeal No. 279/01, along with the stay application and COD, was rejected as not maintainable.