Collector of Customs Vs. Modi Plastics Ltd.

Collector of Customs vs Modi Plastics Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 27, 1996

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/10133

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/10133
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Sep 27, 1996
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Customs

Respondent

Modi Plastics Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (1996)(88)ELT393TriDel

Excerpt

.....the collector of customs, calcutta has merely issued a letter of authority whereby he has authorised sh. n.c. rai, asstt. collector, divisional cell, calcutta, to file an appeal against the order of the collector (appeals), calcutta. this letter of authority does not indicate that collector has independently applied his mind to find out as to whether the order passed by the collector (appeals) is legal and proper in terms of section 129a(2) of the customs act, 1962, which clearly lays down that the collector of customs, may, if he is of opinion that the order passed by appellate collector under section 129a as appealed before him is not correct or whether the collector (appeals) under section 120(a) is not legal or proper direct the proper officer to appeal on his behalf to the appellate tribunal against such order. it is also noticed that except for the order-in-appeal and order-in-original, the revenue has not produced the basic documents like bill of entry, invoice, catalogue and literature. the revenue has also not produced independent evidence to counter the respondents' contention that the twin screw functions as a single screw and the dimension of diameter of 150mm is not required to be taken as a single screw but as double screw.3. in view of these defects in the appeal papers, we dismiss the appeal as unsubstantiated and also as non-maintainable.

Full Judgment

1. This is a Revenue Appeal, which arises from order passed by Collector (Appeals), Calcutta vide Order dated 18-4-1987. The ld.Collector has upheld the importers contention that the imported double screw twin extruder functions more effectively than a single screw of a double dimension and the diameter of the twin screw is about 180MM, which is more than the requirement of 150MM diameter in terms of S. No.14 of Notification No. 40/78. In this regard, ld. Collector has also taken into consideration the international understanding of plastic screw over 150MM dia. as per the scheme of GATT. The Revenue is aggrieved with this order. Hence, they filed this appeal.

2. It is noticed that the Collector of Customs, Calcutta has merely issued a letter of authority whereby he has authorised Sh. N.C. Rai, Asstt. Collector, Divisional Cell, Calcutta, to file an appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta. This letter of authority does not indicate that Collector has independently applied his mind to find out as to whether the Order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is legal and proper in terms of Section 129A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which clearly lays down that the Collector of Customs, may, if he is of opinion that the Order passed by Appellate Collector under Section 129A as appealed before him is not correct or whether the Collector (Appeals) under Section 120(A) is not legal or proper direct the proper officer to appeal on his behalf to the Appellate Tribunal against such order. It is also noticed that except for the Order-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original, the Revenue has not produced the basic documents like Bill of Entry, Invoice, Catalogue and Literature. The Revenue has also not produced independent evidence to counter the respondents' contention that the twin screw functions as a single screw and the dimension of diameter of 150MM is not required to be taken as a single screw but as double screw.

3. In view of these defects in the appeal papers, we dismiss the appeal as unsubstantiated and also as non-maintainable.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Customs vs Modi Plastics Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition