1983 (11) TMI 289 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of appeals by Collectors of Customs.
2. Locus standi of Collectors to prefer appeals against the orders passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Appeals by Collectors of Customs:

The appeals were filed by the Collectors of Customs, Ahmedabad and Bombay, against the orders passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The primary issue was whether the Collectors had the right to appeal under Section 129A(1)(c) of the Customs Act. The respondents contended that the expression "any person aggrieved" in Section 129A(1) did not include the Revenue or the Collectors. They argued that this expression only referred to the assessee or other persons, excluding the Revenue. The respondents further pointed out that prior to the appointed day, the Act did not provide for an appeal against the order of the Appellate Collector or the Board, and the amended provisions did not enlarge the right of the Revenue to prefer an appeal against the Board's order.

In contrast, the appellants argued that the scheme of the Act after the appointed day envisaged the Collector as an "aggrieved person" and thus competent to file an appeal under Section 129A(1)(c). They relied on the provisions of Section 129A(1)(c), sub-sections 3 and 4 of Section 129A(1), and the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1982. They also contended that even though there was no specific provision in the Act prior to the appointed day, the Collectors could always move the Central Government to revise the Board's order.

The Tribunal examined the scheme of the Act before and after the appointed day. Before the appointed day, the Act conferred revisional powers on the Board, the Collector, and the Central Government. After the appointed day, these powers were removed, and specific provisions were made to safeguard the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the expression "any person aggrieved" in Section 129A(1) did not include the Revenue or the Collectors. The right to appeal is a statutory right, and the statute did not contain specific provisions conferring such a right on the Revenue.

2. Locus Standi of Collectors to Prefer Appeals:

The second issue was whether the Collectors had the locus standi to prefer appeals against the Board's orders. The appellants contended that the Collectors filed the appeals in their capacity as executive Collectors and in the interest of Revenue. The Tribunal rejected this contention, stating that once the Collectors functioned as quasi-judicial authorities, they became functus officio after passing their orders. The Tribunal emphasized that there is a clear distinction between judicial and executive authority. A judicial authority, after exercising its judicial function, cannot agitate the correctness of the order passed by a duly constituted appellate authority.

The Tribunal further noted that the right to litigate is an executive power vested in the President of India and exercised through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. The Tribunal found no rule or authority authorizing the Collectors to take a decision to prefer appeals against the Board's orders. Therefore, the Collectors had no locus standi to file these appeals.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Collectors of Customs were not maintainable and incompetent. They dismissed all the appeals, stating that the expression "any person aggrieved" in Section 129A(1) did not include the Revenue or the Collectors, and the Collectors had no locus standi to prefer appeals against the Board's orders. The Tribunal clarified that their observations would not prevent the appellants from seeking any other remedy available to them under the law.