9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member (T) [Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)].-1 . This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal A.No. 56/2006(H-II) CUS dated 24-1-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals) Hyderabad. 2. One Shri Mohd. Salman S/o Mohd. Hussain claiming to be the authorized representative of Smt. Sultana Hayat Mohd. Yaseem W/o Yaqoob Yousuf Alasmi, a foreign national filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) against the Order-in-Original No. 39/2006- Cus dated 31-8-2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate, Hyderabad. The original authority confiscated absolutely the Indian currency of Rs. 4,65,000/- seized from Smt. Sultana Hayat Mohd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atural justice. The appeal ought not , not to have been numbered if the Appellate authority had any objection about the filing of appeal by the GPA of the petitioner without express authorization. Once the appeal is numbered, the appellate authority cannot agitate the question of locus-standi of GPA of petitioner without giving at least one adjournment with a gap of reasonable time to furnish written authorization from the petitioner who was in Bahrain. (v) The Appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner without giving a single adjournment to avail an opportunity to the GPA of the petitioner to furnish written authorization. (vi) The learned Advocate referred to the following decision in the case of Gayatri Proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder is legal and proper and therefore prayed that the Tribunal should uphold the same. 6. We have gone through the record of the case. While dismissing the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that neither Shri Mohd. Salman who claimed himself to be authorized representative of Smt. Sultana Hayat Mohd. Yaseem nor his authorized representatives have placed on record any documentary evidence supporting the contention that he is the authorized representative of Smt. Sultana Hayat Mohd. Yaseem who alone could be considered as person aggrieved by the impugned order. He has also observed that there is no provision under the Customs Act which provides for filing an appeal by a person other than the person aggrieved by any order or d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeared before the Commissioner (Appeals), there was no documentary evidence of authorization. The Commissioner (Appeals) could have given Shri Mohd. Salman an opportunity to produce the power of attorney by giving atleast one adjournment. In such circumstances, we find that there is a denial of principles of natural. We do not want to go into the merits of the case. Therefore, we remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to give an opportunity of personal hearing to Shri Mohd. Salman and take a decision in accordance with law. The authorization attested by both Indian and Barain Consulate officials can also be examined. Thereafter, the Commissioner may decide the appeal as per law. Thus, the appeal is remanded to the Commissioner (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
