9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal filed by Revenue dismissed due to incorrect filing authority. 2. Challenge to the order before Tribunal based on Customs Act provisions. 3. Commissioner's authority to direct filing of appeal. 4. Tribunal's interpretation of relevant Customs Act provisions. 5. Comparison with judgments in similar cases. 6. Applicability of Tribunal's previous decision in the current case. Analysis: 1. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on the grounds of incorrect filing authority. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), West Bengal, Calcutta passed the impugned order, but the appeal was filed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs (Prev. Review), Calcutta. The dismissal was based on Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962, following a Tribunal decision in a similar case. 2. The Revenue challenged the order before the Tribunal, citing Sections 129D(2) and 129D(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. They argued that the Commissioner of Customs can direct any customs officer to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). They also contested the application of a previous Tribunal decision, claiming it was specific to a particular case and should not be applied universally. 3. The provisions of Section 129D(2) allow the Commissioner of Customs to review adjudication proceedings and direct the filing of an appeal by the authority who passed the original order. The direction must come from the Commissioner to the specific authority involved, as indicated by the use of 'such authority' in the provision. 4. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that an appeal must be filed by the same authority who passed the original order to maintain its validity. This interpretation aligns with a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that the appellant should be the adjudicating authority itself, not the one giving the direction to appeal. 5. In another case, the Tribunal clarified that provisions similar to Section 129D do not empower the Commissioner to authorize a different officer to file an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal must be filed by the adjudicating authority to ensure procedural correctness. 6. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, citing the previous decision that the Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon, which supported the requirement for the appeal to be filed by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument and upheld the dismissal of the appeal based on incorrect filing authority.
|
