9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (6) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ani appeared for the respondents and Shri D.K. Saha, learned S.D.R. for the appellant Collector. Shri Nankani contended that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the order passed in this case on 7-10-1983, which is not an adjudication order and also not appealable under Sec. 129A(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Secondly, he contended that this order was reviewed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi after a period of one year and it was on 6-11-1983, the order was reviewed whereas the abovesaid impugned order was dated 7-10-1983. That being the case he stated that the Review Order itself was beyond the period of limitation and on that ground also, the appeal is to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he relied on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Adjudicating Authority as stipulated in Section 129D(3) of the said Act. In the present case, the date of order was 7-10-1983. But in the meanwhile, the period of two years was reduced to one year with effect from 11-5-1984 in terms of Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1984 (21 of 1984). It is, thus, clear that in terms of the amended Act, 1984 (21 of 1984) mentioned above, the Review should have been made on or before 7-10-1984. But in this case, the Review was made on 6-11-1984. In this connection, the learned Advocate, Shri S.D. Nankani relied on the decision reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 331 in the case of Atma Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh and Others, In that case, the Full Bench of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the party may be cancelled. Submitted for Order please. Sd/- Sd/- ACA(Gr.I) Collector 6-10-1983 7-10-" A perusal of this order goes to show that there was no application of mind by the Collector. The discussion made in the Review Order is no basis to come to a conclusion that this order is an Adjudication Order. In order to determine whether this is an Adjudication Order or not, the Tribunal has to look into the order itself and not the proceedings of the Review made by the Board. In this connection, the learned Counsel, Shri Nankani relied on the following decision reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 276 (Tri.) = 1990 (16) E.T.R. 346 in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Nippon Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e signature to the note cannot be treated as an order passed as an adjudicating authority. Further the said action was communicated to the parties. Therefore, it is not an order appealable within the meaning of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. 12. The contention of the appellants that the action of the Collector amounts to a decision, and therefore, appealable under Section 129(1)(a) is not really necessary to consider. However, since arguments were advanced we are expressing our views. 13. The word decision in common parlance is more or less a neutral expression and it can be used with reference to purely executive act as well as judicial order. The mere fact that executive authority has to decide something does not make the decision ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
