Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 193 - AT - CustomsRectification of mistake - section 129A(2) of CA, 1962 - description of the authority that passed the impugned order - It is contended that the authority has been variously shown as Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II and as Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III. Upon scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the appellate authority has described himself as Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II - Held that: - we are not certain about the identity of the competent appellate authority. In view of this application for rectification mistakes, and there being no prejudice to either side, we direct the deletion of all ordinal Roman numerals with reference to the appellate authority - all references to the first appellate authority shall read as 'Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai '. Illegality of our final order - It is alleged that the order has been issued beyond the period stipulated for issue after conclusion of hearing and without recourse to the condoning authority of the President. In our opinion, this is presumptuous on the part of the applicant-Commissioner - Held that: - As a Tribunal composed of public servants, we acknowledge that we are accountable to the citizenry at large. We, however would not submit ourselves to executive authority or to render an explanation of conduct to such executive authority. It would do well for executive authorities to limit their actions to their appropriate stations in the adjudicating hierarchy and to disabuse from them needs mind that the Tribunal is a subordinate authority who is answerable to them. The application is allowed to the limited extent of appropriate modification of the nomenclature of the first appellate authority - decided partly in favor of applicant.
|