TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Accordingly, we have gone through the order-in-original and order-in-appeal as also the appeal memorandum and its enclosures and allowed the Ld. D.R. to make his submissions. 4. Ld. D.R. stated that in this case M/s. Express Transport Pvt. Ltd. who are the clearing agents of the appellants had filed a claim for refund of duty but had not enclosed any letter of authority to show that they had been authorised by the importer to file refund claim on their behalf. 5. The Assistant Collector had rejected the refund claim in the light of CEGAT in the case of V.V., Dabke Co. [reported in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 583] in which it was held inter alia that the agents have no locus standi to file appeal in their own name or right. 6. That apart in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (62) E.L.T. 360]. The appellants have also mentioned that if the A.C. was not satisfied he should have given a notice to them to substantiate their authority before rejecting the claim on technical ground. But apparently a personal hearing was granted at the Collector s stage and there is no indication that they had filed any letter of authority even at that stage and the observations of the Ld. Collector (Appeals) to the effect that it is neither an order or decision of a lower authority do not appear to be relevant inasmuch as an order-in-original dismissing the claim has been passed by the A.C. on 24-1-1985 and such orders are appellable. 9. We have considered the above submissions. 10. We observe that both at the original level aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication by the Customs House itself to the clearing agent in the aforesaid letter and why in the circumstances no personal hearing was granted and the party was not asked to produce a letter of authorisation issued to the clearing agents particularly when the Govt. of India in Revision Notice No. 626/85, dated 27-3-1985 themselves held that in such cases an opportunity should be given to the persons concerned by giving them a notice to substantiate their authority. 14. The order of Collector (Appeals) not only fails to take notice of these aspects but goes to the extent of mentioning that there is neither any order nor a decision against which an appeal has been filed although the covering memo of this very order shows order-in-original n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the Tax Authorities are entitled to collect only the correct amount leviable and chargeable as per law neither less nor more, in view of Article 265 of the Constitution and therefore they can retain only such amount as is authorised by the relevant provisions in this respect. 17. In view of the above position, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the Asstt. Collector concerned for de novo consideration in accordance with law keeping in view inter alia the above observations. The adjudicating authority should give an opportunity to the appellants and their representatives to be heard in person and to allow them an opportunity to produce any documents in support of their contention if they so wish to produce. It sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
