9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant Shri Bohra has sought the setting aside of the Board s order No. 720-A dated 22-12-1981. Under the aforesaid order dated 22-12-1981, the Board vacated its earlier order-in-appeal No. 264A dated 7-4-1981 under which the penalty on the appellant was reduced from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 1000/-. 3. Advocate, Shri Gehani has argued that the facts of the present appeal before the Tribunal are rather unusual. Referring to the facts of the case, Shri Gehani stated that the Addl. Collector levied a penalty of Rs. 12,000/- on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act as he was found to be the real custodian of wrist watches which were confiscated under Section 111(d) read with Section 111(p) of the Customs Act, under the aforesaid order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ataraman, Member of the Central Board of Excise Customs, while the second order dated 7-4-1981 was passed by Shri J. Datta, Member, Central Board of Excise Customs. Thereafter, on its own, the Board passed a third order No. 720-A of 81 dated 22-12-1981 under which the Board referred to the first order dated 30-1-1981 dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with Section 129 and holding that in view of that order there was no scope for the Board to pass another order dated 7-4-1981 and therefore treating the latter order as inoperative and without jurisdiction. The matter was therefore ordered to be closed. It was against this order of the Board dated 22-12-1981 that the present petition was filed to the Government. Shri Gehani argued th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reducing the penalty from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 1,000/- was nullity in law when this position was discovered the same was corrected by the Board vide order dated 22-12-81. It was actually not necessary for the Board to pass a formal order like the one dated 22-12-1981 and a mere communication through a simple letter could have sufficed. The appellant had not felt himself grieved with the first order of the Board dated 30-1-1981 but had filed the present application which was transferred to the Tribunal, only against the third order of the Board dated 22-12-1981. The order dated 7-4-1981 was not operative and was without jurisdiction and hence the relief, if accorded, could not be given to the appellant. It was immaterial as to which officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l my dismay at the failure of the Advocate Shri Alreja in this behalf. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, it is seen that the appeal of Shri Bohra was correctly disposed of by the Board in its Order No. 107 of 81 dated 30-1-1981. This was a legal and proper order and after the same was passed, the appeal of Shri Bohra did not survive. Since there was no appeal pending with the Board, the Board s order dated 7-4-1981 cannot be treated as valid and operative. This is not an order of the Board for reviewing the Collector s Order. It was immaterial which Officer passed the order while exercising the function under old Section 128 of the Customs Act. The impact of the order dated 7-4-1981 was to review the Board s earlier decision da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
