1992 (7) TMI 194 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the appeals.
2. Capacity in which the adjudicating officer signed the impugned orders.
3. Applicability of the Customs Act provisions and related notifications.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to Hear the Appeals:

The central issue was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeals, given that the impugned orders were signed by an officer designated as Deputy Collector. The Tribunal examined the jurisdictional basis derived from documents and pleadings. It was noted that the impugned orders appeared to be signed by the Deputy Collector, leading to the conclusion that the appropriate forum for appeal would be the Collector (Appeals) and not the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized that it could not go beyond the order as it stood, and questions about the adjudicating authority's capacity and the legality of the delegation of powers should be examined by the appropriate forum.

2. Capacity in Which the Adjudicating Officer Signed the Impugned Orders:

The appellants contended that Shri B.K. Gupta, who signed the impugned orders, was actually posted as Additional Collector at the relevant time and not as Deputy Collector. They argued that the orders should be treated as signed by him in his capacity as Additional Collector, making the Tribunal the appropriate forum for appeal. The Tribunal noted that while the Department accepted that the orders were signed by Shri B.K. Gupta as Deputy Collector, the appellants produced documents, including an office order and a departmental booklet, to show his appointment as Additional Collector.

3. Applicability of the Customs Act Provisions and Related Notifications:

The Tribunal reviewed Sections 5 and 152 of the Customs Act and the cited case law. It was observed that the jurisdiction of the forum is derived from documents and pleadings, and the impugned order, signed by the Deputy Collector, indicated that the appeal should lie with the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal also examined the Adjudication Manual, which stated that the Additional Collector, Airport, being basically a Deputy Collector, should adjudicate baggage cases as Deputy Collector to allow appeals before the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal found that this executive instruction lacked a legal basis and was not valid, as it did not convert an Additional Collector into a Deputy Collector.

Separate Judgments:

Order by Vice President (S.K. Bhatnagar):

The Vice President disagreed with the Hon'ble Member (Judicial), asserting that the adjudicating officer, Shri B.K. Gupta, was indeed functioning as Additional Collector at the relevant time. He argued that the officer's designation was incorrectly shown as Deputy Collector, and the appeals should be heard by the Tribunal. The Vice President emphasized that the executive instruction cited was without legal basis and that the officer should have shown his correct designation.

Order by Member (Judicial) (Jyoti Balasundaram):

The Member (Judicial) held that the impugned orders were signed by the Deputy Collector, and thus, the appeals should lie with the Collector (Appeals). She emphasized that the jurisdiction of the forum is derived from documents and pleadings, and the Tribunal could not go beyond the order as it stood.

Order by Member (Technical) (P.C. Jain) on Reference:

The Member (Technical) agreed with the Vice President, stating that the issue of jurisdiction was settled by a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case. He noted that the adjudicating officer was appointed and functioning as Additional Collector at the relevant time, and the impugned order must be treated as passed by the Additional Collector. Therefore, the appeals were maintainable before the Tribunal.

Conclusion:

In view of the majority opinion, the Tribunal held that the appeals were maintainable and directed that they be listed for hearing on merits. The Tribunal emphasized the need to show the correct designation and capacity of the adjudicating officer, and it rejected the argument that an Additional Collector could function as a Deputy Collector for adjudication purposes.