1984 (7) TMI 383 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Requirement to file four sets of documents under the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
2. Legal obligation to comply with procedural rules post-transfer of revision applications to the Tribunal.
3. Summoning records from lower authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement to file four sets of documents under the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982:
The appellant was required to file four sets of specific documents as per the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. These documents included copies of the revision petition, the order appealed against, the original order passed, documents produced earlier and now relied upon, and a Declaration Form-Authorised Representative/Vakalatnama with a Court Fee stamp of Rs. 5.

The appellant's advocate objected to this requirement, arguing that the revision application was filed under the old Section 131 before the Tribunal's formation and thus should not be subject to the new procedural rules. He emphasized that under Section 131B(2), the Tribunal should proceed with the matter as if it were an appeal filed before it, without additional document requirements.

2. Legal obligation to comply with procedural rules post-transfer of revision applications to the Tribunal:
The Tribunal referenced a prior judgment (Order No. 326/CAL/83-1961) which clarified that once a revision application is transferred to the Tribunal, it must conform to the Tribunal's procedural rules. The Tribunal underscored that the new procedural requirements do not infringe upon the appellant's rights but are necessary for the proper functioning of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal cited the Finance Act (No. 2) of 1980, which inserted Chapter XV into the Customs Act, 1962, transferring pending revision applications to the Tribunal and requiring compliance with its procedural rules. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court's observation in the case of M/s. Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, stating that the right of appeal is substantive, and procedural changes must be adhered to.

3. Summoning records from lower authorities:
The appellant's advocate requested the Tribunal to summon records from the lower authorities. The Tribunal advised the appellant to first approach the lower authorities to obtain the necessary documents. If the lower authorities did not comply, the appellant could then seek the Tribunal's intervention for directions to produce the records.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the appellant is obligated to file documents in accordance with the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal directed the appellant to comply with these requirements and suggested that the appellant seek the necessary documents from the lower authorities before requesting the Tribunal's assistance.