2019 (11) TMI 68 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal in terms of Section 129D of CA - Committee of Chief Commissioners vide review order have directed the Commissioner of Customs for filing of appeal before the Tribunal; whereas, the appeal in the present case was filed before the Tribunal under the signature and seal of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs - HELD THAT - Instead of the said designated/specified officer, the appeal in this case has been signed and verified by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. Since, in terms of Section 129D ibid, the Committee of the Chief Commissioners have reviewed the matter and directed the concerned officer for filing of appeal before the Tribunal, such direction cannot be considered as empty formality and has to be strictly adhered to for the purpose of achieving the legislative mandate. It has been consistently held that in absence of any specific authority being delegated under the statute, the proper officer who has been entrusted with the job for filing the appeal should only sign the appeal records including the verification memo contained in the appeal memorandum - But in the present case, since the proper officer i.e. Commissioner of Customs has not preferred the appeal by himself in the manner prescribed in the statute, we are of the view that the appeal filed by Revenue cannot be maintained on ground lack of jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Maintainability of appeal before the Tribunal under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 based on the authority signing the appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of the maintainability of an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue had filed an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava-Sheva. The respondent raised a preliminary objection stating that the appeal is not maintainable as it was filed before the Tribunal under the signature and seal of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, not the Commissioner as directed by the Committee of Chief Commissioners in a review order. The respondent's advocate cited various judgments to support this objection, emphasizing the importance of the proper officer designated by the statute signing the appeal records.

The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that the filing of the appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs was a technicality and should not affect the statutory right of appeal. They contended that the appeal should be considered maintainable despite the procedural irregularity. The Tribunal heard both sides and examined the records. They noted that the Committee of Chief Commissioners had directed the Commissioner of Customs to file the appeal, but it was filed by the Deputy Commissioner instead. The Tribunal emphasized that the direction from the Chief Commissioners should be strictly followed to achieve the legislative mandate. Referring to the judgments cited by the respondent's advocate, the Tribunal highlighted the requirement for the proper officer designated by the statute to sign the appeal records. Since the Commissioner of Customs did not file the appeal as prescribed, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal filed by the Revenue lacked jurisdiction and was thus dismissed. However, the Revenue was given the opportunity to file a proper appeal in accordance with the statutory requirements.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of adherence to procedural requirements, particularly regarding the authority designated to file appeals under the Customs Act. It emphasizes that statutory provisions must be strictly followed to maintain the jurisdiction of appeals before the Tribunal, highlighting the importance of the proper officer signing the appeal records as mandated by law.