O.P. GULATI Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI O.P. Gulati, Gulati Photostat and Typewriters, Opposite HPO, Rohtak has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. The said appeal was received in the Registry on 18th March, 1985. Shri O.P. Gulati, the appellant has appeared personally and Shri M.N. Dhar, the learned JDR for the respondent. At the outset of the hearing, Shri M.N. Dhar, the learned JDR raised a preliminary objection that in view of the amendment made by Finance Act No. 21 of 1984, which came into force from 11th May, 1984, the jurisdiction in respect of baggage cases lies with the Central Government and as such, a revision application should have been filed. Shri O.P. Gulati, the appellant in reply pleaded that bonafidely after looking in the preamble of the order -in -appeal, he had filed an appeal before the Tribunal and there is no lapse on his part. He pleaded that the Tribunal may hear his appeal and in case the Bench proposes to transfer the appeal to the revisionary authority or sending it back to the appellant, then the appellant should not be placed in a disadvantageous position on account of the limitation aspect.

(2.) WE have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Finance Act No. 21 of 1984 came into force on 11th May, 1984. The order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is dated 30th October, 1984 and the order -in -original is dated 19th July, 1984. It was unaccompanied baggage and the appellant had come back to India on 10th June, 1984. It is a baggage case and both the sides accept the same. In view of the amendment of law with effect from 11th May, 1984 vide Finance Act No. 21 of 1984, we are of the view that the jurisdiction in the present matter does not lie with the Tribunal and a revision application should have been filed before the revisionary authority, Central Government, New Delhi. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of India Pistons Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras and Ors. reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 651 in para No. 7 had observed as under : -

(3.) WE respectfully follow the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and direct the Registry to return the papers to the appellant. The appellant is at liberty to file a revision application before the Central Govt. if he so chooses in accordance with law. The appeal was presented before the Tribunal before the expiry of limitation and was in time. We shall appreciate if the revisionary authority considers the limitation aspect sympathetically and liberally. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.