2018 (4) TMI 119 - AT - Customs

Rejection of appeal for want of jurisdiction - appeal filed before wrong authority, which was not transferred to correct forum, even on being requested by appellant - Held that - If the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals) was of the view that the appeal lies to the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals) then he should have sent the same to that authority but he did not do so in spite of the request made by the appellant. The rejection of the appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals) on the ground that there is no provision of resubmission of the appeal once the appeal is disposed of by the competent authority, this finding of the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals) is not sustainable because the Commissioner of Customs (AppeaIs) has not disposed of the appeal on merit; he has rejected the appeal for the reason of wrong jurisdiction. The Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals) is directed to entertain the appeal which is filed in time and to decide the same on merit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in rejecting the appeal without deciding on merit.

Analysis:
The appeal was against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejecting it for lack of jurisdiction without addressing the merits. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, imported goods under concessional duty. Discrepancies were found in the quantity received compared to the invoice. The lower adjudicating authority confirmed differential duty, interest, and imposed penalties. The consultant argued that the appeal rejection was improper, citing precedents where appeals should be transferred to the correct authority. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) also rejected the appeal, claiming no provision for resubmission after disposal. The consultant argued for the appeal's consideration, referencing relevant tribunal decisions.

The AR defended the impugned order, but the judicial member disagreed. It was held that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal based on jurisdiction without transferring it to the appropriate authority. Similarly, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was criticized for rejecting the appeal without considering the merits. The judicial member found both orders unsustainable in law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, directing the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) to entertain and decide the appeal on merit after providing the appellant with a hearing opportunity. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court at the conclusion of the hearing.