9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 110 - AT - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - appellant is not aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicating authority. Therefore, appeal is not maintainable as per Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
- Maintainability of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: - The appellant exported Plastic coated playing cards provisionally for export, and the test report initially did not match the description provided by the appellant. Upon disputing the report, the samples were re-tested, and the subsequent report favored the appellant. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking relief under Citizen's Charter and invoking proceedings under Section 166/167 IPC. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) deemed the appeal not maintainable as the appellant was not aggrieved by the Adjudicating authority's order. This decision led to the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). - In the absence of representation from the appellant during the appeal proceedings, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai proceeded with the case, considering its pertinence to the year 2004. Upon review, the Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant lacked grounds for grievance against the Adjudicating authority's order. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, affirming the impugned order's validity. This detailed analysis highlights the core issue of the appeal's maintainability under the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing the Tribunal's alignment with the Commissioner (Appeals) in deeming the appeal not sustainable due to the appellant's lack of aggrievement by the initial order.
|
