Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2004 (1) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2004 (1) TMI 503 - AT - Customs

Issues: Jurisdictional challenge based on validity of Notification No. 78/2002-Cus. (N.T.)

In this judgment, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi addressed the jurisdictional challenge raised by the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jalandhar. The appeal contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned order based on Notification No. 16/2002-Cus. (N.T.) and its amendment by Notification No. 78/2002-Cus. (N.T.). The sole ground of appeal was the jurisdictional issue, specifically citing the notifications in question. The Tribunal noted that under Notification No. 16/2002, both the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Delhi-1 and Jalandhar had concurrent jurisdiction over matters within the administrative purview of the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Amritsar. The impugned order was found to be within jurisdiction as per the relevant notification. The jurisdictional objection raised by the department was based on Notification No. 78/2002-Cus. (N.T.), which sought to omit certain provisions affecting the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jalandhar. However, the Tribunal held that the amending notification issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs was invalid as the authority to confer appellate jurisdiction under the Customs Act rests exclusively with the Central Government. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the amending notification had no legal effect on the original notification issued by the Central Government. As a result, the jurisdictional challenge raised by the Revenue collapsed, and the appeal was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue did not present any other notification to support their appeal.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates