9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not accompanied by an order-in-assessment which had not been issued by the group. Shri Mudaliar, the learned advocate pleaded that the bill of entry itself is an assessment order and is appealable. He pleaded that since the Collector of Customs (Appeals) did not apply his mind on merits, if the Bench accepts that the appeal was maintainable on the basis of the bill of entry to be treated as an assessment order, then the matter be remanded to the Collector of Customs. 2. Shri S.K. Roy, the learned SDR who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, stated that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal for not attaching the order-in-assessment. Shri S.K. Roy, the learned SDR stated that the Assistant Collector did not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rson aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an officer of customs lower in rank than a Collector of Customs may appeal to the Collector (Appeals) within three months from the date of the communication to him of such decision or order. A simple perusal of the section shows that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed by an officer of customs lower in rank than a Collector of Customs may appeal to the Collector (Appeals) within three months from the date of the communication of the order. In the matter before us the bill of entry was attached along with the appeal memo to the Collector (Appeals) as per statement made by Shri Mudaliar, Advocate. Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 relates to the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions or orders within the meaning of Section 188. Section 188 is pari materia to Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. Para No. 8 from the Privy Council judgment is reproduced below :- ****** 4. In view of the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the case of Glaxo Laboratories v. A. V. Venkateswaran reported in AIR 1959 Bombay 372 and Privy Council in the case of Secretary of State v. Mask Co. reported in AIR 1940 Privy Council 105, we are of the view that the appeal was maintainable against the order of assessment under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the Collector (Appeals) has not applied his mind for decision on merits, we are of the view that the matter should be remanded to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
