1986 (8) TMI 232 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Service of the Collector (Appeals) order.
3. Interpretation of Section 128A(5) of the Customs Act.
4. Procedural compliance and Standing Orders.
5. Merits of the appeal and its implications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal
The Principal Collector of Customs, Bombay, filed an appeal against an order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) on 17-7-1985. The appeal was filed on 6-3-1986, beyond the three-month period prescribed under Section 129A(3) of the Customs Act. The Principal Collector requested condonation of this delay, citing that the order was received late and the delay was due to the consideration of the correct classification of the imported goods and subsequent procedural delays.

2. Service of the Collector (Appeals) Order
The Principal Collector argued that a copy of the Collector (Appeals) order was not served on him as required under Section 128A(5) of the Customs Act. It was contended that the order was served on the Asstt. Collector, T.C.U., which did not fulfill the statutory requirement of serving the Principal Collector directly. The Respondent countered that the order was indeed served on the Asstt. Collector, who acted as an agent for the Principal Collector, and thus the service was valid.

3. Interpretation of Section 128A(5) of the Customs Act
The Principal Collector's advocate argued that the service of the order on the Asstt. Collector did not meet the legal requirements of Section 128A(5). The Respondent contended that the Tribunal Co-ordination Unit (T.C.U.) was part of the Collector's office, and thus the service was valid. The Tribunal found that the Standing Orders did not align with Section 128A(5) and that the Principal Collector was deprived of his statutory right to appeal due to improper service.

4. Procedural Compliance and Standing Orders
The Tribunal examined the Standing Orders (No. 6756, 6772, 6816, and 6839) and found that they were not in consonance with the statutory requirements of Section 128A(5). The Standing Orders had created a special unit for coordinating appeals, but this did not fulfill the requirement of direct service to the Principal Collector. The Tribunal concluded that the procedural lapses led to the delay in filing the appeal.

5. Merits of the Appeal and Its Implications
The Principal Collector's appeal raised significant issues regarding the classification of power plants imported into India and the interpretation of Notification No. 71/85-Cus. The Tribunal noted that the Collector's order had wide revenue implications and that the appeal should be heard on its merits. The Tribunal cited the Bombay High Court's judgment in the State Bank of India case, which emphasized that public institutions should not be treated on par with private individuals regarding the limitation period.

Conclusion
The Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay, recognizing that the Principal Collector was deprived of his statutory right to appeal due to procedural lapses and improper service of the order. The appeal was admitted for hearing and disposal on merits in due course.