Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S N P T Papers Pvt. Ltd vs C.C. New Delhi (Icd Tkd) on 13 July, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Customs Appeal No. C/50255/2016-Cu[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. VIII/ICD/10/TKD/SIIB-Imp/DRI/NPT Papers/20/2015/8663 dated 29.04.2015 passed by CC Tughlakabad]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s N P T Papers Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
C.C. New Delhi (icd Tkd) Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Pradeep Jain (Advocate) for the Appellant Mr. Dharam Singh (DR) for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/ Decision. 13.07.2016 Final Order No. 52450 /2016_ Per S. K. Mohanty:
Feeling aggrieved with the communication dated 29.04.2015 of the Deputy Commissioner (SIIB) ICD Import, Tughlakabad, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides.
3. On a query from the Bench as to how the appeal was filed against the communication of the Deputy Commissioner before the Tribunal, the Ld. Advocate for appellant submits that against the said communication, though the appeal was preferred by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) but the Commissioner(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 12.10.2015 on the ground that the same is not maintainable since the competent authority i.e. the Commissioner of Customs has conveyed his decision for provisional release of goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. On perusal of the appeal papers, I find that the decision of the Commissioner of Customs conveyed by the Deputy Commissioner (SIIB) regarding payment of estimated differential duty, execution of bond and furnishing of bank guarantee has in fact been taken by the Commissioner of Customs in his administrative capacity. Since such decision of the Commissioner of Customs has not been rendered in the capacity of adjudicating authority, I am of the considered view that the appeal against the communication dated 29.04.2015 of the Deputy Commissioner is not maintainable before this Tribunal in terms of Section 129 A of the Customs Act, 1962, which specifically provides that appeal can be filed against the decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an Adjudicating Authority.
5. In view of above, the appeal filed by the appellant before this Tribunal against the communication dated 29.04.2015 is not maintainable and is thus dismissed. Order to be issued dasti.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial) Neha 2 | Page C/50255/2016-SM