Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Vipul Plastic Industries vs Commr. Of Customs, (Acc), Mumbai on 6 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(141)ELT777(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. Appeal taken up for disposal after waiving deposit, with the consent of both sides.
2. The appellant before us received, some time in November, 2000, an order dated 30-10-2000 of the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai. Notwithstanding the fact that this order was unsigned, an appeal was filed against this order before the Commissioner (Appeals). That authority asked for a signed copy of the order of the Additional Commissioner, and this not having been produced, he dismissed the appeal before him. Hence this appeal.
3. It will be obvious that an unsigned copy of the Additional Commissioner's order is no order at all. It has no legal force or sanctity. An apeal against it could not have been filed. The Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in dismissing the appeal before him.
4. That being the case, the appeal filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be entertained by this Tribunal.
5. We are unable to comprehend the request made by the Counsel for the appeal to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) or his plea that since the Commissioner (Appeals) did not hear the appeal, his order is invalid. There being no valid order at all, there was no valid appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the question of hearing the appellant therefore does not arise.
6. We have necessarily to dismiss the appeal. Before doing so, however, we would note that the failure of the Additional Commissioner to respond to the letter dated 24-1-2001 of the Advocate for the appellant asking for a signed copy of the order is to be deplored. His failure does not serve the interest of the department either. If the intention were to demand duty from the appellant and impose penalty on it as the unsigned order purports to do, the Additional Commissioner should have furnished a signed copy of the order, or otherwise suitably replied we hope that the Chief Commissioner to whom we endorse a copy of this order will intervene and take necessary action.
7. Appeal dismissed.