Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Bhatia Global Trading Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive), ... on 2 June, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : C/10282/2016, C/10304/2016 (Arising out of Notification Order-VIII-28-73-CESTAT-RRA-14-15/5345 dated 21.10.2015, passed by Assistant Commissioner (RRA), Customs, Jamnagar) M/s. Bhatia Global Trading Limited : Appellant (s) M/s. Asian Natural Resources India Limited VERSUS Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri R.B. Pardeshi & Shri N.S. Patel, Advocates For Respondent (s) : Shri J. Nair, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Dr. D.M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes CORAM :
Dr. D.M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision : 02.06..2016 ORDER No. A/10485-10486/2016 Dated 02.06.2016 Per : Dr. D.M. Misra;
Heard both sides.
2. These matters are listed under the mentioned category by the Registry.
3. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has pointed out that these appeals have been filed under Section 129A of the CA,1962 against the letter dated 21.10.2015 addressed by the Assistant Commissioner (RRA), Customs. It is his contention that the appeals are not maintainable before this Tribunal inasmuch as the proper forum to file the Appeal against the decision/order of the Assistant Commissioner is the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Ld. Advocate Shri R.B. Pardeshi for the appellants submits that the Appellant had written a letter to the Commissioner Customs, however, the decision was communicated by the Assistant Commissioner, customs. Hence, the decision be considered as that of Commissioner of Customs.
4. We do not find force in the contention of the ld. Advocate for the appellant inasmuch as the functions of the officers are specifically laid-down under the Act and the Rules made there under. Also, in the said letter, nowhere it is mentioned that the decision was communicated on the direction of the Commissioner of Customs. Therefore, mere addressing a letter to the Commissioner , irrespective of whether the commissioner is the proper officer or otherwise, the communication/decision of the Asst. Commissioner, in response to such letter of the Appellant, confer on them the right to file Appeal provided under Section 129A of CA,1962.
5. In the result, the appeals are dismissed being not maintainable.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (D.M. Misra)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
..KL
2