2009 (4) TMI 673 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the sanction of refund to importers under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Interpretation of Section 129D(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the authority responsible for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai stemmed from the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the appeal of the Revenue against the sanction of Rs. 5,24,263/- to importers under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed that the refund should only be sanctioned after undergoing the test of unjust enrichment.

2. The appellants sought to raise an additional ground, arguing that since the adjudication order was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, it should be the Assistant Commissioner who files an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) as per Section 129D(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, in this case, the Commissioner directed the Additional Commissioner to file the appeal.

3. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appellants to raise the additional ground, noting that it was a legal issue. Subsequently, after hearing both sides, the Tribunal determined that the appeal could be resolved based on this additional ground.

4. Section 129D(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was analyzed, citing precedents such as Commissioner of Customs (P), West Bengal v. Biswajit Dutta and G. Exporters v. Additional Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. These cases established that the adjudicating authority who issues the order-in-original should be the one to file the appeal, not another designated person. The Tribunal also referenced the case of CCE v. Maza Cosmetics, where the High Court of Delhi clarified that the Commissioner can only direct the adjudicating authority to file an appeal, not any other officer.

5. Based on the interpretation of Section 129D(2) and the precedents cited, the Tribunal upheld the appellants' objection, ruling that the Commissioner could not direct the Additional Commissioner to file the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai provides a detailed overview of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision on each matter, particularly focusing on the interpretation of Section 129D(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.