2021 (7) TMI 1144 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - Form No. CA-1 under Rule 3(1) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 read with Section 128 of the Customs Act - Confiscation - Foreign Currency - HELD THAT - The form prescribed for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is CA-1, though Column No. 4 seeks for providing the date of communication of the order appealed against, the same cannot be controlled the manner in which an appeal is to be preferred. If there are separate dates on which different appellants had received the orders, those different dates can be provided in the column. Further, when right of appeal is a vested right and a creation by the statute, the form prescribed or any column in the form so prescribed cannot control the right to file an appeal. Appeal to the Commissioner of Appeals cannot be determined either by the rules governing the appeal to the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The respondent to take up the appeal already filed by the appellants, accept and treat the same as duly filed, number the same and consider it in accordance with law - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against a common order affecting multiple appellants - Requirement of filing separate appeals - Interpretation of Form No. CA-1 under Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 - Right of appeal as a statutory right - Applicability of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Analysis:
The case involved a common appeal filed against a joint order by the Joint Commissioner of Customs confiscating foreign currency and imposing penalties on the appellants. The office of the Appellate Authority directed the appellants to file separate appeals due to there being two appellants, leading to the appellants challenging this communication through a writ petition.

The Learned Single Judge, while dismissing the appeal, highlighted the importance of Form No. CA-1 under the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, which requires specific information regarding the appellants. It was noted that while the adjudicating authority can issue a common order affecting multiple persons, separate appeals are necessary to facilitate the Appellate Authority in dealing with the appeals effectively. This decision was challenged by the appellants in the present appeal.

The High Court emphasized that the right of appeal is a statutory right inherent in every individual from the commencement of legal proceedings. It was clarified that if a joint order affects multiple aggrieved parties, they are entitled to prefer a single appeal jointly without any legal mandate for separate appeals against a common order.

The Respondent's argument regarding the necessity of separate appeals based on the particulars required in Form No. CA-1 was considered. The court rejected this contention, stating that the form's requirements should not dictate the manner in which appeals are filed. Even if the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, mandate separate appeals against common orders, it does not apply to appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Ultimately, the High Court set aside the Learned Single Judge's judgment and directed the respondent to consider the appeal already filed by the appellants against the common order dated 28-8-2020 as duly filed, numbered, and processed in accordance with the law. The writ appeal was allowed accordingly.