2006 (9) TMI 386 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved: Rectification of defect in appeal filing u/s 129-D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962; Competency of officer filing appeal; Time-barred appeal.

The judgment pertains to a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue to rectify a defect in the appeal filed by them u/s 129-D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Customs, but the appeal was filed by an officer not competent to authorize, as per the provisions. The Tribunal noted that the appeal should have been filed by an officer not lower in rank than the Commissioner, which was not done initially. The application sought to substitute the form CA-5, but the Tribunal held that the defect was not curable, leading to the dismissal of the application and the appeal as barred by limitation.

The Revenue contended that the appeal was filed based on the direction of the Committee of Chief Commissioners, but the form CA-5 was authorized by a Deputy Commissioner, not the Commissioner herself. The Tribunal emphasized that such applications should be signed by the Commissioner and not by any other officer authorized by her. The application to rectify this defect was dismissed as the appeal was not maintainable due to the incorrect authorization of the filing officer.

The Respondent's advocate argued that the defect in the appeal filing was not curable and if rectified, the appeal would be considered filed on the date of the rectification, rendering it time-barred. The Tribunal considered the submissions and concluded that since the appeal was not filed by an officer of the required rank, the defect could not be rectified, leading to the dismissal of the application and the appeal as time-barred.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application seeking to substitute the form CA-5 and subsequently dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Additionally, other applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals against co-noticees were also dismissed. All appeals were ultimately dismissed as time-barred.