Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai vs M/S. Hindustan Gas Industries Ltd. on 19 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(137)ELT849(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member(T)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The copies of the authorisation given by the Commissioner were filed in photostat format. On 19.1.2001 notice was sent directing production of the original authorisation. Subsequently another notice was also issued. In response, the Commissioner of Customs (E.P.) filed a fresh authorisation dated 14.2.2001.
2. What was required was filing of the original copy of the authorisation earlier made by the Commissioner, dated 24.11.2000. the fresh authorisation dated 14.2.2001 cannot empower an appeal to be filed on 28.11.2000. The appeal filed on 28.11.2000 was defective. The defect has not been cured by the Commissioner. We have found in number of cases that the Revenue does not take sufficient care in filing of the appeals. In a number of cases even repeated reminders and notices cautioning about the possible dismissal are not replied. The corrective action wherever undertaken is reluctant and lackadaisical. It is not kept in mind by the Revenue that if the procedural formalities are not fulfilled properly, their appeals become defective and are in danger of being dismissed. Where the Revenue may have strong case on merits, by this attitude the appeal may be lost. To impress his upon the Revenue authorities, we deem it proper to dismiss this appeal with liberty to seek on following the correct procedure.
(Dictated in Court)