9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Additional Collector of Customs, I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi Shri N.K.P. Sinha. However in the spot adjudicating order his designation had been shown as D.C. Customs. 4. Hence a question regarding the maintainability of appeal before CEGAT had arisen. 5. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that Shri N.K.P. Sinha s designation has been wrongly shown as Deputy Collector. Actually he was Additional Collector; hence the appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal. 6. In support of this contention the following documents had been produced. (i) Copy of the order issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, posting Shri N.K.P. Sinha, as Additional Collector of Customs, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el stated that a reading of the order would show that in para 2 it merely refers to the fact that the Consultant Shri N. Singh referred us several documents to show that the officer namely Shri N.K.P. Sinha was posted at the relevant time and he could have only exercised the powers of the Additional Collector but nowhere in the operative portion of the order the documents as such have been mentioned or discussed and the findings have not been based on them although they were relevant and were required to be considered for arriving at a correct conclusion. 11. In this connection he would like to rely on the Tribunal s order in the case of National Textiles Corporation Limited, reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 783 in which it was held that a g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in view of the gazette notification and the case law cited and further held that the appeal against his order was admissible. 15. The learned counsel stated that the ratios of these orders were clearly applicable. Hence they were relevant orders which had been duly cited and the Tribunal was required to take note of these orders but he had not done so. 16. We find that the learned counsel s arguments have strong force. 17. A perusal of the records of the case shows that the learned counsel had filed copies of the documents enumerated by him in the application and had drawn attention of the Bench towards these documents. 18. He had inter alia shown the gazette notification and also cited the case law mentioned by him. However in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
