9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original Assessment Order, Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal, Allegation of order passed by Commissioner but issued by Deputy Commissioner. Analysis: The appeal in question was against an Order-in-Original Assessment Order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs - ICD/TKD, New Delhi. The appellant chose to approach the Tribunal instead of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), citing notings made by the Commissioner in the file related to the import dealt with in the impugned order. The appellant argued that the order, though issued by the Deputy Commissioner, was actually passed by the Commissioner based on these notings. However, the Tribunal found this argument unconvincing, emphasizing that the order was indeed passed by the Deputy Commissioner and was appealable to the Commissioner as per Section 128(1) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal examined the notings made by the Commissioner in the file, which were presented along with the Memo of Appeal. It was revealed that the file had moved from the Commissioner's office to the Deputy Commissioner through the appellant's representative, who had obtained photocopies of the file. The Tribunal expressed concern over the leakage of internal communication between the offices through this method, highlighting that the order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner and not by the Commissioner. The Tribunal distinguished the current case from a previous decision where an order passed by the Commissioner was communicated by a subordinate official, clarifying that in this instance, the order was genuinely issued by the Deputy Commissioner. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the order in question was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, and therefore, no appeal lay to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal made it clear that the dismissal should not prejudice the appellant's right to prefer an appeal to the appropriate appellate authority in accordance with the law.
|
