Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (2) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) has allowed the appeal filed by M/s. Hassanally & Co. (hereinafter called as 'importer') where the Appellant was not a party to the Appeal. 2. The ld. A.R. (Asstt. Commr.) appearing for the department has raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of the present application and appeal on the ground that the applicant was not a party to the appeal proceeding before Commissioner (Appeals) hence they are not an aggrieved person under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the importer was not made a party in the present appeal nor they were present, accordingly, the Bench had directed the learned A.R. on the said date of hearing i.e. on 21-12-2011 to inform the importer and ask them to be present on the next date of hear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... une 19, 2001 to the importer and with a copy to the applicant. Hon'ble High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the adjudicating authority to complete the adjudication expeditiously and to give an opportunity of hearing to the importer and the applicant. The lower adjudicating authority vide his order dated 17-3-2011 had absolutely confiscated the goods imported vide the Bill of Entry 15-12-2010 by respondent No. 1 and ordered the destruction of the goods and also imposed penalty against respondent No. 1. A copy of this order was also endorsed to the applicant. Aggrieved by the order the importer filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Appeal by setting aside the direction of confiscat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t having any right to appeal in this case. In support of its contention the respondent placed reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 502 (S.C.). 8. The Learned A.R. submitted that since the Applicant were not a party to the proceeding before the Commissioner (Appeals), they are not aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. In his rejoinder the learned advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the contention of the importer that applicant approached the customs department only after respondent No. 1 made an application for registration of trade mark to the Trade Mark Authority is n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods involved in adjudication, such as a party contending that the said goods really belonged to it and not to purported importer. Insofar as present case is concerned, the petitioner (appellant therein) was a party to the proceedings before the adjudicating authority. 10. We find that the applicant was party to the joint examination carried out by SIB. They were made party in writ petition filed before Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata directed Adjudicating Authority to expedite the case ordering as under :- The adjudication shall be completed expeditiously preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the reply to the Show Cause Notice. If no reply is given within the time st .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oner (Appeals) has drawn a conclusion which is adverse to the interest of the applicant. Hence, in our opinion the Applicant is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Application and Appeal filed by them are maintainable. 13. Since the issue involved is on a narrow compass the Appeal itself is taken up for disposal. We find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had decided the case without affording the applicant an opportunity of hearing. This is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice in view of the Hon'ble High Court's decision directing the adjudicating authority to give an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, the direction does not end there but equally applicable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates