1985 (10) TMI 231 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal vs. Collector (Appeals) for orders passed by the Additional Collector.
2. Validity of the Collector (Appeals)'s order dismissing the appeal.
3. Proper course of action for the appellant following the dismissal by the Collector (Appeals).
4. Legality of the Additional Collector's order, including the cancellation of the appellant's goldsmith certificate.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal vs. Collector (Appeals) for orders passed by the Additional Collector:

The primary legal issue was whether an appeal against the order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise as a Gold Control Officer lies to the Appellate Tribunal or to the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal had previously held that an appeal against the order of the Additional Collector does not lie to the Tribunal but to the Collector (Appeals). This position was supported by the East Regional Bench in the case of Sunil Kumar Ghosh v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, West Bengal 1983 E.L.T. 1964 (CEGAT). The Tribunal emphasized that jurisdiction must be conferred explicitly by statute and cannot be inferred or implied.

2. Validity of the Collector (Appeals)'s order dismissing the appeal:

The Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeal based on administrative instructions communicated through a Ministry letter, which stated that appeals against orders of the Additional Collector should be filed with the Tribunal. The Tribunal found this approach improper, noting that the Collector (Appeals) acted mechanically without applying independent judicial mind. The Collector (Appeals) is required to act as a quasi-judicial authority and cannot base decisions solely on administrative instructions. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's stance that administrative instructions cannot control the decisions of judicial or quasi-judicial authorities.

3. Proper course of action for the appellant following the dismissal by the Collector (Appeals):

The Tribunal criticized the Collector (Appeals) for advising the appellant to file an appeal with the Tribunal within 30 days after dismissing the appeal. This advice was deemed inappropriate as it overstepped the Collector (Appeals)'s authority and ignored the Tribunal's earlier decision on jurisdiction. The proper course of action should have been to return the appeal records for presentation to the correct authority rather than dismissing the appeal outright.

4. Legality of the Additional Collector's order, including the cancellation of the appellant's goldsmith certificate:

Shri Mehta argued that the Additional Collector's order, which included the cancellation of the appellant's goldsmith certificate, was beyond jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the power to cancel or suspend a license or certificate is vested in the Administrator or a person duly authorized by the Administrator under Sub-Sec. (5) of Sec. 4 of the Gold Control Act. Therefore, the cancellation of the certificate by the Additional Collector was without jurisdiction. The Tribunal directed the Collector (Appeals) to consider this aspect while reviewing the appellant's request for a stay of the order.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and directed the Collector (Appeals) to take the appeal on file and dispose of it on merits. The Tribunal also highlighted the need for the Collector (Appeals) to act independently and judicially, without undue influence from administrative instructions. The Tribunal urged the Collector (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal within two months, considering the significant delay already experienced by the appellant.