G. EXPORTERS Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUS., BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from OIA No. 29/2004, dated 27 -02 -2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the departmental appeal filed before him by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and remanded the matter for de novo consideration. The short question raised by the appellant is that the authorisation in terms of Section 129D(2) has to be given to such authority, who passed the Order -in -Original, by the Commissioner of Customs to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Order -in -Original was passed by the Additional Commissioner and, therefore, the authorisation given by the Commissioner of Customs to the Assistant Commissioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is not in terms of Section 129D(2). It is also stated that this aspect has been gone into by the Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. v. M. M. Rubber Co. - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.); and by the Tribunal in the cases of (a) Supreme Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Indore - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 1003 (Tribunal) and (b) Dhampur Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Meerut - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 498 (Tribunal).

(2.) HEARD both sides in the matter.

(3.) ON a careful consideration, we are satisfied that in terms of the provisions of Section 129D(2), the authority who passed the order should be directed to file the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). While in the present case, the Commissioner of Customs has authorised the Assistant Commissioner to file the appeal who was not the authority who passed the Order -in -Original. In view of the judgment cited supra, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal and proper and hence, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed.