2014 (2) TMI 15 - AT - Customs

Maintability of appeal - Whether assessee was party on apeeal proceedings or not - Vilation of principal of natural justice - Held that - he applicant was party to the joint examination carried out by SIB. They were made party in writ petition filed before Hon ble High Court at Calcutta and Hon ble High Court at Kolkata directed Adjudicating Authority to expedite the case Commissioner (Appeals) had decided the case without affording the applicant an opportunity of hearing. This is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice in view of the Hon ble High Court s decision directing the adjudicating authority to give an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, the direction does not end there but equally applicable to the Appeal proceeding also. Therefore it was incumbent upon learned Commissioner (Appeals) to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the applicant before passing any order which adversely affect the interest of the applicant. In these circumstances and following the Hon ble Kolkata High Court s decision, we set aside the order-in-appeal and remand the case to the learned Commissioner for deciding the issue afresh, after hearing the applicant - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the application and appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Whether the applicant is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 129A.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The issue of maintainability under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 was raised by the Assistant Commissioner, contending that the applicant was not a party to the appeal proceeding before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal filed by another party, and the applicant was not directly involved in the initial appeal. The department raised a preliminary objection on the grounds of the applicant not being an aggrieved person under the said section.

2. The applicant argued that they were aggrieved by the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) as they had filed a complaint regarding illegal import activities. The applicant contended that they were the right holder of the brand name involved in the case and had been part of various proceedings related to the matter. The applicant claimed recognition by the customs department as a right holder and highlighted their involvement in the examination of goods and other proceedings.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) decided the case without giving the applicant an opportunity of hearing, which the applicant argued was a violation of natural justice principles. The Tribunal found that the applicant was indeed an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. Citing the direction from the Hon'ble High Court, the Tribunal set aside the order-in-appeal and remanded the case for a fresh decision after affording the applicant a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following principles of natural justice and ensuring a fair hearing for all concerned parties.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of maintainability, aggrieved person status, and violation of natural justice principles as addressed in the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA.