Page 235 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] SANDEEP SHARMA v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AMRITSAR 673

2020 (373) E.L.T. 673 (Tri. - Chan.)
IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, CHANDIGARH
[COURT NO. I]
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J)
SANDEEP SHARMA
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AMRITSAR
Final Order No. A/60178/2020-SM(BR), dated 29-1-2020 in Appeal No.
C/61044/2019
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal maintainable even in Baggage cases
when only procedural aspect relating to violation of natural justice raised -
Procedure - Order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) without considering
written submissions of appellant - Order passed in violation of principles of
natural justice - Contention that in terms of provision of Section 129A of Cus-
toms Act, 1962, appeal before Tribunal not maintainable on issue of baggage,
irrelevant as challenge was not on merits - Order set aside and matter remand-
ed - Sections 128 and 128A of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 4, 5]
Matter remanded
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Angel Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri M.S. Dhindsa, Authorized Representative, for
the Respondent.
[Order]. - The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein
it is prayed by the appellant that they were directed to file written submissions
which were filed by the appellant and while passing the impugned order the Ld.
Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the same, therefore, there is a viola-
tion of principle of natural justice and the same impugned order is to be set
aside.
2. On the other hand, Ld. AR submitted that it is a case of baggage and
in terms of provision [of Section] 129A of Customs Act, 1962, the appeal is not
maintainable before this Tribunal.
3. Heard the Ld. AR and perused the record.
4. On perusal of the record, I find that the appellant has not challenged
the merits of the case, he is praying that principle of natural justice was required
to be followed by considering their written submissions filed by them on 24-4-
2019 and no consideration has been given to them.
5. In view of this, I turned out the objection raised by the Ld. AR and
prosecute to take up the appeal on its own merits, as discussed hereinabove that
Ld. Counsel for the appellant had challenged the impugned order on the ground
that principle of natural justice has not been followed by non-consideration of
their written submissions filed by them which were on record at the time of pass-
ing the impugned order, in that circumstances, I hold that the Ld. Commissioner
(Appeals) has violated the principle of natural justice and written submissions
filed by the appellant were required to be considered while passing the im-
pugned order, therefore, I set aside the impugned order and the remand the mat-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  235