2008 (9) TMI 828 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the appeal filed with an authorization signed by only one Commissioner.
2. Consideration of a fresh appeal filed with a new authorization after the original appeal was dismissed.
3. Requirement of a review of the Order-in-Appeal by a Committee of two Commissioners.
4. Timeliness of filing an appeal within the prescribed period.
5. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal.

Issue 1: Validity of the appeal filed with an authorization signed by only one Commissioner.
The Tribunal noted that the Customs Appeal was filed with an authorization dated 12-4-06 issued by a single Commissioner, contrary to the requirement of a Committee of two Commissioners. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to this procedural irregularity.

Issue 2: Consideration of a fresh appeal filed with a new authorization after the original appeal was dismissed.
A Miscellaneous Application for restoration of the dismissed Customs Appeal was submitted with a fresh authorization dated 18-9-07 by a Committee of two Commissioners. However, no fresh appeal was filed based on this new authorization. The Tribunal emphasized that the dismissed appeal could not be considered as filed under the new authorization, and the Department failed to file a fresh appeal as required by law.

Issue 3: Requirement of a review of the Order-in-Appeal by a Committee of two Commissioners.
The law mandates a review of an Order-in-Appeal by a Committee of two Commissioners, followed by filing an appeal before the Tribunal within three months. In this case, the impugned Order was communicated on 30-1-06, exceeding the three-month period by 30-4-06. The fresh authorization issued on 18-9-07, after nearly twenty months, did not comply with the timely filing requirement.

Issue 4: Timeliness of filing an appeal within the prescribed period.
The Tribunal highlighted the importance of adhering to the prescribed period for filing appeals, emphasizing that the delay in filing the fresh appeal after the communication of the impugned Order was inordinate. The lack of a timely filing was a crucial factor in the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 5: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
The Miscellaneous Application for restoration of the appeal did not provide any explanation for the significant delay in filing. The Tribunal emphasized that without a valid explanation for the delay, the application for restoration had to be dismissed, as condonation of delay was not warranted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application for restoration of the Customs Appeal due to procedural irregularities, failure to file a fresh appeal under the new authorization, and the significant delay in compliance with the prescribed timelines for filing appeals.