M/S. Delta Overseas vs C.C.E. & S.T. Ludhiana

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. VIII-10(HQ)CUS/ADJ/18/2008/Pt-1/4096 dated 02.07.2015 passed by CC Ludhiana]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Delta Overseas ...Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E. & S.T. Ludhiana Respondent

Appearance:

Mr. Naveen Bindal (Advocate) for the Appellant

Mr. Devinder Singh, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing/ Decision. 31.07.2015

Final Order No. 53245 /2015_

Per S.K. Mohanty:

This Misc. Application is for out of turn hearing of appeal filed by the appellant against the letter dated 02.07.2015 of the Assistant Commissioner (ADJ) in the office of the Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana, wherein the appellant was informed that the request for cross examination has been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority, the reason for the same shall be communicated in the Order-in-Original. Feeling aggrieved with the said letter of the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant has preferred appeal before this Tribunal along with application for stay of operation of the impugned order.

2. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.

3. Filing of appeal before this Appellate Tribunal is governed under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. In sub-section (1)(a) of the said section, it has been provided that the decision or order passed by Commissioner (Customs) as an Adjudicating Authority can be appealed against before the Tribunal. In the present case, the letter dated 02.07.2015 signed and issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Adjudication) cannot be considered as decision or order passed by the Commissioner (Customs), as the Adjudicating Authority. Even assuming that the said communication is to be considered as an appealable order, yet in view of the fact that the Assistant Commissioner has conveyed the decision of the Commissioner (Customs), but appeal against the said communication is pre-mature, in view of the fact that the order of rejection of the request for cross examination by the Adjudicating Authority has not been passed and communicated to the appellant.

4 In view of the above, the appeal against the letter dated 2.7.2015 of the Assistant Commissioner (Adjudication) is not maintainable, and thus, the Misc. Application for early hearing of the stay application filed by the appellant is dismissed. Since there is no adjudication order passed by the Competent Authority under the statute, the appeal filed against the communication dated 02.07.2015 is also dismissed as not maintainable.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial)

Neha

2 | Page

C/52627/2015