JUDGMENT
G.A. Brahma Deva
1. These are two appeals file by the appellant with reference to the respective impugned order accompanied with stay applications as well as applications to condone the delay in filing the appeals.
2. When these matters were called none appeared on behalf of the appellants nor I find any request for an adjournment. Further more, the Ld. D.R points out that these appeals are not maintainable in terms of Section 128 and 129A of the Act. She said that the impugned order was passed by the addl. Commissioner and appeal lies to the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 128 of the Custom Act. She read the relevant Sections which reads as under:
“SECTION 128. Appeals to (Commissioner (Appeals)) – (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an officer of customs lower in rank than a (Commissioner of Customs) may appeal to the (Commissioner (Appeals)) within three months from the date of the communication to him of such decision or order:
Provided that the (Commissioner (Appeals)) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months, allow it to be presented within a further period of three months…..”
“SECTION 129A. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal – (1) Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order-
(a) a decision or order passed by the (Commissioner of Customs) as an adjudicating authority;
(b) an order passed by the (Commissioner (Appeals)) under Section 128A;
(c) an order passed by the Board or the (Appellate Commissioner of Customs) under Section 128, as it stood immediately before the appointed day;
(d) an order passed by the Board or the (Commissioner of Customs), either before or after the appointed day, under Section 130, as it stood immediately before that day;…..”
She submitted that party was required to file appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) since the order was passed by the Addl. Commissioner. Hence she requested that appeals may be dismissed as not maintainable.
3. On considering the facts and circumstances and in view of the wordings of relevant sections, I find that Department Representative is correct in pointing out that appeal lies before the Commissioner (Appeals) since the order was passed by the Addl. Commissioner. In view of this position, the appeals are dismissed as not maintainable. The party is at liberty to file the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) within a reasonable time. Registry is directed to return the papers to enable him file before the proper forum.
4. Ordered accordingly.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court).