RAMAKRISHNA MISSION HOSPITAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUS., KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Shri S.C. Rudra, ld. Consultant for the appellants and Shri T.K. Kar, ld. SDR for the Revenue.

(2.) AS per the facts on record, the appellants imported hospital equipments free of duty under Notification 64/88 -Cus., dated 1 -3 -88. Subsequently, they were issued a notice under Section 28(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 proposing to deny the notification in question and demand of duty in terms of P.D. Bond executed by the appellants at the time of clearance of the goods. The appellants were also directed to appear in person in support of their defence. However, as the appellants neither replied nor appeared in person, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Air -Cargo Complex, vide his Order dated 30th October, 1996, confirmed the demand of duty against them. As the appellants did not deposit the amount in question, they were issued a notice under the provisions of Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants filed an appeal thereagainst before Commissioner (Appeals) who refused to entertain the same by observing that the appellant has not challenged the demand order passed by the Assistant Commissioner before any Higher Appellate Forum and the instant appeal filed against the notice issued under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962, is not maintainable.

(3.) APPELLANTS have admitted that the order confirming demand of duty by the Assistant Commissioner passed on 23/30 -10 -96 was not challenged by them, before Commissioner (Appeals). However, they submitted that they could not understand that the said order was an appealable order and as such, the appeal could not be filed by them. However, we find that the fact remains that the said order of the Assistant Commissioner has become final and the appellants are liable to pay the confirmed demand of duty against them. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed that the appeal under notice issued under Section 142, is not maintainable. We do not find any infirmity in the above view of the Appellate Authority and accordingly, we reject the appeal filed by the appellants.