2012 (9) TMI 10 - AT - Customs

Maintenance of call book - Revenue is relying upon the Board Circular No. 162/73/95-CX - contention of Revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not followed the instructions contained in the circular Held that - Circular is by way of administrative instructions and the administrative instructions having no statutory forces -Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issue involved in the appeal and simply adjourned the case to await the decision of Hon ble High Court where the appeal is pending against the decision of the Tribunal which is arising out of the same cause of action - Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits and simply adjourned the appeal appeal of revenue is dismissed

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, reliance on administrative circular, failure to decide appeal on merits

The judgment addresses the issue of condoning a delay in filing an appeal. The Revenue filed an application for condoning a three-day delay in filing the appeal, which was allowed by the Tribunal based on the reasons provided in the application. The delay was thus condoned, allowing the appeal to proceed despite the delay.

Another issue in the judgment pertains to the reliance on an administrative circular by the Revenue. The Revenue relied on Board Circular No. 162/73/95-CX dated 14 December, 1995, which provided instructions regarding the maintenance of a call book. The contention was that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not follow the instructions outlined in the circular. However, the Tribunal noted that the circular was merely administrative in nature and did not hold statutory force. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for not deciding the issue on its merits and instead adjourning the case pending a decision from the High Court. As a result, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.

The final issue addressed in the judgment is the failure of the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on its merits. The Commissioner (Appeals) had adjourned the case to await the decision of the High Court, where an appeal was pending against the Tribunal's decision arising from the same cause of action. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not make a substantive decision on the appeal and merely postponed it. Consequently, the Tribunal found no basis to entertain the appeal and dismissed it for lack of merit.

In conclusion, the judgment dealt with the condonation of a delay in filing the appeal, the reliance on an administrative circular, and the failure to decide the appeal on its merits by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal emphasized the non-statutory nature of the administrative circular, criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for not deciding the appeal substantively, and ultimately dismissed the appeal due to the lack of merit in the circumstances presented.