Skip to content


Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Decided On
Reported in(1994)(70)ELT579Tri(Kol.)kata
AppellantHindustan Motors Ltd.
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....has been signed by shri b.chaudhury of m/s. hindustan motors ltd. as per the provisions of customs appeal rules 1982, appeal to the appellate tribunal has to be filed under rule 6 read with sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (3) of rule 6.sub-rule (3) of rule 6 provides that the appeal should be signed and verified in the manner prescribed under rule 3, sub-rule (2) of the customs appeal rules, 1982. the relevant sub-rule is reproduced as under: "'rule 3, sub-rule (2): the ground of appeal and the form of verification as contained in form e. no. c.a. 1 shall be signed:- (c) in the case of a company or local authority, by the principal officer thereof;" in the instant case, the appellant is a limited company incorporated under the companies act. the principal officer has not been defined under the.....
Judgment:
1. M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd., had filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order No. Cal-Cus-2251/82 dated 26-8-1982 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta. The memorandum of appeal is on form No. CA 3 and has been verified by Shri B. Chaudhury of M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd., on 28th April 1983 in his capacity as Assistant Clearing and Shipping Officer of the Company. There is a letter of authority dated 2nd August 1983 whereby Shri S.N. Murarka has authorised Shri B. Chaudhury to appear on behalf of the company. The appeal was fixed for hearing on the 8th September 1983. Shri B. Chaudhury, authorised representative of the appellant had appeared before us and had filed photo copies of the proforma for utilisation of certificate under para 1(iii) of the Customs Notification Nos. 200 and 201/F. No. 355/46/79 Cus. I, both dated 28th September, 1979. The learned authorised representative had prayed that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Customs under the Notification Nos. Cus. 200/79 and Cus. 201/79.

2. The learned departmental representative had objected to the grant of benefit on the ground that the appellant had failed to file the end-use certificates before the lower authorities in view of the bond executed by him.

3. After hearing both the sides and while dictating the order, we have found that the verification of appeal has been signed by Shri B.Chaudhury of M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd. As per the provisions of Customs Appeal Rules 1982, appeal to the Appellate Tribunal has to be filed under Rule 6 read with Sub-rule (1) and Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6.

Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 provides that the appeal should be signed and verified in the manner prescribed under Rule 3, Sub-rule (2) of the Customs Appeal Rules, 1982. The relevant sub-rule is reproduced as under: "'RULE 3, SUB-RULE (2): The ground of appeal and the form of verification as contained in Form E. No. C.A. 1 shall be signed:- (c) in the case of a company or local authority, by the principal officer thereof;" In the instant case, the appellant is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. The Principal Officer has not been defined under the Customs Act, but the same has been defined under the Income-Tax Act as well as Companies Act. The definition of the 'Principal Officer' under Sub-section (35) of Section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is reproduced as under: "'Principal officer' used with reference to a local authority or a company or any other public body or any association of persons or any body of individuals means - (a) the secretary, treasurer, manager or agent of the authority, company, association or body or (b) any person connected with the management or administration of the local authority, company, association or body upon whom the IncomeTax Officer has served a notice of his intention of treating him as the principal officer thereof;" 4. After going through the records, we find that the appeal is not signed and verified properly and in the interests of justice, we hereby direct the reopening of the hearing to give an opportunity to the appellant to explain his case and to satisfy the court with necessary documents and direct the appellant to appear in this court on the 15th day of December 1983 and in these circumstances, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the case, at this stage.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //