1989 (1) TMI 257 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Authorization of Additional Collector to file an appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Interpretation of the term "Collector of Customs" under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Comparison of powers between Collector and Additional Collector as per relevant legal provisions and judicial pronouncements.
4. Validity of the appeal memo signed by the Additional Collector himself.
5. Request for early hearing of the appeal and scheduling of the stay application hearing.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolved around the authorization of the Additional Collector to file an appeal before the Tribunal. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Additional Collector did not have the authority to issue the authorization for the appeal. The Appellant contended that as per the Customs Act, the Additional Collector is included in the definition of "Collector of Customs." The Tribunal examined the relevant legal provisions and judicial precedents to determine the validity of the authorization.

2. The Tribunal referred to Section 129A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which empowers the Collector of Customs to direct the proper officer to appeal on his behalf to the Appellate Tribunal. It was highlighted that the definition of "Collector of Customs" under the Act includes the "Additional Collector of Customs." Similar provisions were found in the Central Excise Rules, reinforcing the inclusion of Additional Collectors in the definition of "Collector." The Tribunal analyzed the legislative intent behind these provisions to ascertain the scope of authority granted to Additional Collectors.

3. Citing the judgment in the case of Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, the Tribunal emphasized that a person invested with the powers of a Central Excise Officer can exercise all powers given in the statute, including adjudicatory functions. Additionally, a precedent from a larger Bench clarified that the Additional Collector of Central Excise is not lower in rank to the Collector, as deeming provisions equate their functions. The Tribunal also referenced a decision from the Calcutta High Court, which underscored that Additional Collectors can be appointed as Central Excise Officers with powers equivalent to the Collector.

4. Based on the legal provisions and judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal concluded that the Additional Collector was authorized to exercise the powers of the Collector of Customs. It was determined that the appeal memo signed by the Additional Collector himself was valid in law, and the authorization was deemed correct. The objection raised by the Respondent regarding the authority of the Additional Collector to file the appeal was overruled by the Tribunal.

5. Lastly, the Tribunal addressed the request for early hearing of the appeal and the scheduling of the stay application. It was decided that the stay application would be heard first, and the Registry was instructed to list the application for hearing on a specified date. The Tribunal refrained from passing any orders regarding the early hearing of the appeal at that stage, focusing on the pending stay application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the authorization of the Additional Collector to file the appeal, emphasizing the inclusion of Additional Collectors in the definition of "Collector of Customs" and the validity of the appeal memo signed by the Additional Collector. The decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of relevant legal provisions and judicial precedents, ensuring clarity on the authority of Additional Collectors in such matters.