2004 (12) TMI 257 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, maintainability of appeal

In this case, the appellant filed an appeal against an order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs, which was dismissed due to lack of authorization and readability issues. The appellant then filed an application for restoration of the appeal, which was also rejected. Instead of challenging this rejection, the appellant chose to file a fresh appeal against the same order. The Tribunal found that the fresh appeal could not be entertained as the earlier order had finality, and there was no provision in the law to file a second appeal against the same impugned order. The Tribunal concluded that there was no reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal when the appeal itself was not maintainable. Therefore, the condonation of delay application and the appeal were both dismissed on these grounds.

The main issue in this case was whether a fresh appeal could be entertained against the same impugned order after the original appeal was dismissed and a restoration application was rejected. The Tribunal held that once an appeal had been disposed of, whether in favor or against the appellant, it was not open for the appellant to file a second appeal against the same order with an application to condone the delay. The earlier order passed by the Tribunal had finality, and there was no provision under the law enabling the appellant to file a second appeal against the same impugned order.

Another key issue was the maintainability of the appeal due to lack of authorization and readability issues in the original appeal and restoration application. The Tribunal noted that the original appeal was not signed by the authorized person and the photocopy of the clearance given by the high-powered committee was not readable. Despite this, the appellant chose to file a fresh appeal instead of challenging the rejection of the restoration application. The Tribunal found that there was no valid reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal when the appeal itself was not maintainable due to these issues.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the condonation of delay application and the appeal itself on the grounds that the fresh appeal could not be entertained against the same impugned order, and the original appeal was not maintainable due to lack of authorization and readability issues. The decision highlighted the finality of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal and emphasized the importance of following proper procedures and requirements in filing appeals before the Tribunal.