2018 (10) TMI 766 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Maintainability of appeals against the decision of Asst. Commissioner dated 3rd May, 2018 – Appealable order or not? – Section 129A of Customs Act – Held that:- In an identical set of facts, this Tribunal in the case of Delta Overseas [2015 (7) TMI 1091 – CESTAT NEW DELHI] has held that the letter of Assistant Commissioner (Adj.) cannot be considered as an appealable order for filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
–
As the appeal not maintainable before Tribunal, the appeals filed by the appellants are also dismissed – appeal dismissed – decided against appellant. – Applications No. C/EH/85678/2018 & E/EH/85680/2018, C/MISC/85679/2018 & E/MISC/85681/2018, Appeal No. C/86868/2018 & E/86870/2018 – A/87430-87431/2018 – Dated:- 11-7-2018 – Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri Vishal Agrawal, Advocate with Shri Ramnath Prabhu, Advocate for appellant Shri S.R. Nair, E.O with Shri M.R. Melvin, Supdt. (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohan
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
witnesses was taken by the Commissioner, in the capacity of adjudicating authority, the letter dated 3.05.2011 of the Asst. Commissioner, merely communicating such decision should be considered as the order / decision by the competent authority for entertaining the appeal before the Tribunal. To strengthen his argument, the learned Advocate has relied on the judgment dated 01.08.2014 of the Hon ble Delhi High Court (in Customs Appeal No. 1/2014) in the case of Amit Electronics v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.). 4. Heard both sides and examined the records. 5. The Assistant Commissioner (Adj.) in his letter dated 03.05.2018 had conveyed that he had been directed by the adjudicating authority for communicating to the appellant for not granting cross examination of the witnesses. The said communication of the Asst. Commissioner cannot be considered as an order / decision by the Commissioner of Customs, as an adjudicating authority inasmuch as such letter is silent about the mode of direc
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
esh Govindbhai Patel (supra). On a query from the Bench, as to whether, operation of those two orders of this Tribunal have been stayed or over-ruled by the higher judicial forums, both sides replied in negative. Thus, in view of the coordinate bench decision of this Tribunal, appeal filed against the letter of Assistant Commissioner, in this case, cannot be considered as an appellate order for filing appeal before the Tribunal. The judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Amit Electronics (supra) relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as in such cited case, there was an order dated 03.05.2013, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), which was merely communicated by the Asst. Commissioner. Since in the case of Amit Electronics (supra), the order was passed by the competent authority as contemplated under Section 129A of the Act, such order will be considered as appealable o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =