Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Aptab Ali, Abdul Kalam, Anarul Biswas, ... vs Comr. Of Customs (Prev.), W.B. on 4 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(148)ELT692(TRI-KOLKATA)
ORDER
Smt. Archana Wadhwa
1. After dispensing with the condition of predeposit of penalty amount on all the applicants, I take up the appeals for hearing the consent of both the sides.
2. From the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), it is seen that he has dismissed all the appeals by observing that the same are not maintainable being defective in nature. he has further observed that inasmuch as the stay petitions and appeals memo are not signed by the appellants at the appropriate places, the same are defective. I have seen the appeal memos. The same bears the signature and that the appellants grounds of appeals have been attached as Annexure and the same did not bear separate signature of the individual. Similarly, the stay petitions though signed by the Advocate are not signed by the individual appellant. However, if the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the signature appearing in the appeal memo are at wrong places, he should have given on opportunity to the appellants to rectify the defective instead of dismissing the appeals as such. It is also seen that the Commissioner has dismissed the appeals on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. It is not understood that when the appellants have filed the stay petition, how could their appeals be dismissed for non-compliance without first deciding the stay petitions. In view of the foregoing, I set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) with direction to him to give an opportunity to the appellants to remove the defect, if any, and to disposal of the appeals on merits thereafter. All the appeals are allowed by way of remand. Stay Petition also get disposed of.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.