CARTRONICS PVT. LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was filed by a company viz. Cartronics Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Director Shri Manik Chand Ranka. There is no representation for the appellant despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment.

(2.) THE original authority had denied refund of Special Additional Duty to the extent of Rs. 3,08,566/ -. Aggrieved, one Shri L. Satish Kumar, CA, preferred an appeal in the name of the above company to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The appellate authority found that he was not authorized to file the appeal. In the case of any company, an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) should have been filed by its principal officer as per Rule 3(2)(c) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. The said Shri L. Satish Kumar was not the principal officer of the company and was only one of its employees. He was not authorized to file the appeal either. These facts were admitted by Shri Satish Kumar himself before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the circumstances, the appeal filed by him came to be dismissed as not maintainable. The present appeal filed by the company represented by its director is against the appellate Commissioners order.

(3.) 1 I have perused the memo of appeal wherein the appellant has inter alia stated thus : The appellate commissioner in the impugned order states that Shri L. Satish Kumar has filed the appeal as chartered accountant. This is a wrong statement as the appeal is signed as authorized representative as can be seen from the verification made by the appellant. The appellant has not produced a copy of the memo of appeal filed with the Commissioner (Appeals), to prove that the subject appeal was filed by Shri Satish Kumar as authorized representative of the company. The gist of other submissions of the appellant is that Shri Satish Kumar is a part and parcel of our company and therefore the appeal filed by him before the Commissioner (Appeals) should have been entertained. The appellant further submits that, as the term principal officer has not been specifically defined, it should be understood in the light of the general meaning of principal. 3.2 As rightly submitted by the learned Superintendent (AR), the above arguments of the appellants are farfetched and strenuous. It is not in dispute that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed by a chartered accountant of the company without authorization. It would be unconscionable to hold that the chartered accountant fitted in the meaning of principal officer. The very fact with the present appeal of the company has been filed by one of its directors would indicate that the appellant has become wiser after noting the relevant provisions of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which also require an appeal of any company to be filed by its principal officer.