MILAK BROTHERS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MIS . Milak Brothers, hereinafter referred as the exporter/appellant, filed a revision application dated November 15, 1980 before the Joint Secretary (Revision Application), Ministry of Finance, Government of India against Order -in -Appeal Nos. S/49 -14/78 -E dated 9th of November, 1979 which was a common order in sixty six appeals passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. As per revision application, the said order was despatched on the 23rd May, 1980 and received by the importer on 27th May, 1980. Since these were not controverted, we accepted the dates as mentioned in the R.A. The related sixty six orders though passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs on different dates and in respect of different consignments of exports, are more or less similarly worded. The R.A. came to be transferred to the Tribunal by virtue of the provisions of Section 131 -B of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter referred as the Act, as Appeal and came to be registered as No. 55O/8O -D by the Tribunal.

(2.) VIDE Notice dated 31st of January, 1983, the hearing was fixed on 1st of March, 1983. On the said date, Shri M.G. Abrol, Consultant appeared along with Shri K.K. Kapoor. On a query from the Bench as to how in one appeal, sixty -six matters disposed of by the Collector of Customs A (Appeals) by a common order could be agitated, the Consultant submitted that intention was to contest all the sixty -six appeals and one R.A. had been filed under a mistaken notion. Shri Abrol accepted that sixty -six sets of fees would be payable and therefore, time was sought to pay sixty -five further sets of fees. At their request, the hearing was adjourned to 23rd of March 1983.

(3.) ON 9th of March, 1983, the Registry of the Tribunal received a communication dated 8th of March, 1983 signed by Shri K.K. Kapoor, Consultant on behalf of the appellant stating that sixty -five more copies of revision applications were being submitted and payment was being made for similar number of sets and sought the Bench's permission for such deposit. At this stage, we like to make it clear that on 1st of March, 1983 the Bench had only observed that sixty -six sets of fees would be necessary and not the it sixty -five extra sets of appeals or revision applications should have been filed.