9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Authorization in terms of Section 129D(2) for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the authority who passed the Order-in-Original. Analysis: The appellant sought a stay on the operation of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, which allowed the departmental appeal and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The appellant argued that the authorization under Section 129D(2) should be given by the Commissioner of Customs to the authority who passed the Order-in-Original, not to the Assistant Commissioner who filed the appeal. Citing previous judgments, the appellant contended that the authorization was not in compliance with the law. The Tribunal considered the arguments and found that the authority who passed the order should file the appeal, as per Section 129D(2). In this case, the Commissioner of Customs authorized the Assistant Commissioner to file the appeal, which was not in line with the legal requirement. The Tribunal agreed that the plea raised by the appellant should have been considered in their favor by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had distinguished previous judgments but found the order not legally sound. Consequently, the stay application was allowed, indicating that the issue was settled in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal directed the matter to be listed for final hearing, scheduling the appeal for September 20, 2004. The Respondent was given the opportunity to file para-wise comments if desired. This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal issue regarding authorization for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant based on the interpretation of Section 129D(2) and relevant case law.
|
