Posted On by &filed under Judgements.

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Mumbai
Commissioner Of Customs vs Special Prints Ltd. on 17 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000 (121) ELT 813 Tri Mumbai


J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)

1. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I passed three orders all dated 9-2-1998 against the respondents M/s. Praful Silk Factory later known as M/s. Special Prints Ltd., wherein he confirmed the demands of interest in the case of warehoused goods which were cleared subsequent to the permissible limits laid down under the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his single order allowed the importers claim and allowed the appeals. Against this judgment the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I directed an appeal to be filed vide an authorisation dated 19-4-1999 utilising his powers under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal was accordingly filed on 22-4-1999 in form EA3 under Rule 216(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Registry pointed out the defects at the time of filing of the appeal as well as in several later communications. On 5-10-1999 the appeal memorandum was filed in form CA3 in terms of Rule 6(1) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. However, the Commissioner had not issued a fresh authorisation in terms of the appropriate section in the Customs Act, 1962. The freshly filed format did not contain any information in column No. 8 onward. The verification was not done subsequent to the statement of facts and the grounds of appeal. In a number of communications the defects were pointed out but were not corrected.

2. Since the authorisation of the Commissioner under which the present appeal has been filed by the revenue is defective, the appeal does not survive and is dismissed. The stay application also stands disposed of.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.178 seconds.