2014 (8) TMI 878 - AT - Customs

Disposal of representation - appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) under section 128 - Held that - Once representation was made to learned Commissioner, he was required to pass an order against that. But he failed to do so. The representation was disposed by Assistant Commissioner. Appeal was therefore rightly filed before Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and both the appeals are remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose the matter on merits of the case. It should always be remembered that an authority who he hears a matter, that authority should only pass the order following the ratio laid down in the case of Gullapalli Nageshwari Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation 1959 (8) TMI 42 - Supreme Court of India Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) under section 128 of Customs Act, 1962

Analysis:
The appellant argued that the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, which the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi did not dispose of. The appellant contended that the decision of the Assistant Commissioner was not appealable to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant relied on legal principles stating that a person aggrieved by an order has the right to a remedy against that order, citing relevant case laws such as Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. M.P.Steel Corporation-2013 and Sheela Foam Pvt.Ltd. v. Union of India-1997. The Revenue supported the action of the Assistant Commissioner. After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Tribunal found that once a representation was made to the Commissioner, he was required to pass an order on it. Since the Commissioner failed to do so and the representation was disposed of by the Assistant Commissioner, the appeal was rightly filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and both appeals were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter on its merits. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of an authority passing orders in accordance with established legal principles, referencing the case of Gullapalli Nageshwari Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation-AIR 1958 SC 308.

This judgment clarifies the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing the right of a person aggrieved by an order to seek a remedy against it. It underscores the necessity for authorities to pass orders following legal principles and sets a precedent for the proper disposal of representations and appeals in customs matters.