KANTHILAL Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
LAWS(CE)-1986-10-5
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on October 23,1986

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.Kalyanam, - (1.)THIS is an application seeking condonation of the delay of 2 months an 9 days in the presentation of the appeal. S/Shri Neelalochanan and S.R. Krishnan, the learned consultants appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was suffering from heart ailment and was not in a position to move about and exert himself to contact his consultant for filing the appeal. A medical certificate also has been produced issued by one Dr. Keshav Singh of Madras. The learned consultants further urged that prima facie the impugned order itself is without jurisdiction and not legally tenable and so a liberal view should be taken in condoning the delay. Since the petitioner was suffering from heart ailment as evidenced by the medical certificate and prima facie the impugned order would appear to be without jurisdiction I feel interests of justice require that the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity of arguing the appeal on merits. In this view of the matter the delay in the presentation of the appeal is condoned.
(2.)This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeal), Madras dated 24-1-1986. At the outset a preliminary point of law was urged on behalf of the appellant that the present impugned order appealed against is without jurisdiction and is not legally be sustainable. It was urged that as early as on 14-5-1985 the then Collector of Customs (Appeals) has passed an order by another authority on the appeal filed by the appellant before him, and in such a situation the impugned order which is a second order in respect of the same issue already decided by the competent authority is without jurisdiction. Shri Krishnan, the learned DR produced the relevant file before me. The learned DR also brought to my notice that in respect of the matter which arose for determination before the appellate authority a decision had been taken and order pronounced on 14-5-1985. The learned DR therefore fairly submits that it is only this order dated 14-5-1985 that should have been communicated to the appellant herein so as to enable them to prefer any appeal if they are aggrieved against the same. The learned DR therefore submitted that necessary direction should be issued for communicating the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras dated 14-5-1985 as evidenced by the departmental case file.
I had the benefit of going through the departmental file produced for my perusal by the learned DR. 1 find that in respect of the appeal filed before the Collector of Customs (Appeal) a view has already been taken on consideration of the various points urged before him and order dictated and signed by the then Collector of Customs (Appeal) dated 14-5-1985. Therefore when a competent authority namely Collector of Customs (Appeals) has signed the order on 14-5-1985 in respect of an appeal preferred before him as against the original order of Deputy Collector of Customs, Bangalore dated 14-10-1983, the said order of the appellate authority should have been as per law and communicated to the appellants or his consultant so as to enable him to prefer an appeal before a proper forum under law. Instead of adopting this course I find that the impugned order has come to be passed on 24-1-1986 by the succeeding Collector of Customs (Appeal) once over on the very same issue already decided by his predecessor in office as indicated above. Evidently this mistake has happened by reason of the change of the Collector of Customs (Appeal). Since already the Collector of Customs (Appeal), Madras in respect of the issue in question passed an order on 14-5-1985 as disclosed by the department's file the present impugned order dated 24-1-986 once over is without jurisdiction. In this view of the matter I set aside the impugned order dated 24-1-1986 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeal) as One without jurisdiction in law. I further direct that the copies of the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeal) dated 14-5-1985 referred to supra be communicated as per law to the appellant so as to enable him to prefer an appeal before proper forum if he so desires. Since the impugned order has been set aside on preliminary question of law I do not feel called upon to go into the merits of the issue.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.