2012 (11) TMI 830 - AT - Customs

Refund of Special Additional Duty denied - appeal rejected as appellant not authorized to file - Held that - The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed by a chartered accountant of the company without authorization as it would be unconscionable to hold that the chartered accountant fitted in the meaning of principal officer. - The very fact with the present appeal of the company has been filed by one of its directors would indicate that the appellant has become wiser after noting the relevant provisions of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules 1982, which also require an appeal of any company to be filed by its principal officer . The appellant has not produced a copy of the memo of appeal filed with the Commissioner (Appeals) to prove that the subject appeal was filed by Shri Satish Kumar as authorized representative of the company - against assessee.

Issues:
1. Authorization to file an appeal on behalf of a company by its principal officer.
2. Dismissal of appeal due to lack of authorization by the principal officer.
3. Interpretation of the term "principal officer" in the context of filing appeals.
4. Compliance with CESTAT (Procedure) Rules 1982 regarding filing appeals by the principal officer of a company.

Issue 1: Authorization to file an appeal on behalf of a company by its principal officer.
The appeal in question was filed by a chartered accountant on behalf of a company, which was found to be unauthorized as per Rule 3 (2) (c) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the chartered accountant was not the principal officer of the company and therefore lacked the authority to file the appeal.

Issue 2: Dismissal of appeal due to lack of authorization by the principal officer.
The company, represented by its director, subsequently filed an appeal against the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order. The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on the basis that the chartered accountant who filed the initial appeal was not the principal officer of the company. The Tribunal found that the appeal filed by the unauthorized representative was not maintainable.

Issue 3: Interpretation of the term "principal officer" in the context of filing appeals.
The appellant argued that the term "principal officer" should be understood in the general sense of the word "principal" and contended that the chartered accountant was a part of the company. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that it would be unreasonable to consider a chartered accountant as a principal officer. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal of any company should be filed by its principal officer, as required by the relevant provisions of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules 1982.

Issue 4: Compliance with CESTAT (Procedure) Rules 1982 regarding filing appeals by the principal officer of a company.
The Tribunal concluded that the appeal filed by the company's director was in compliance with the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules 1982, which mandate that appeals of any company should be filed by its principal officer. The Tribunal found no fault with the Commissioner's order to dismiss the initial appeal and upheld the order as sustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the company, represented by its director, against the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order.

← Previous Next →