9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Jurisdiction of ADG (Vigilance) to adjudicate drawback cases; Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear appeals against the impugned order.
Jurisdiction of ADG (Vigilance) to adjudicate drawback cases: The judgment pertains to three stay applications arising from adjudication orders by the Additional Director General (Vigilance), Mumbai, directing the applicants to repay drawback received due to over-invoicing goods with unrealized export proceeds. The applicants challenged the orders on the grounds of jurisdiction. The Tribunal found no prima facie merit in the submission, citing Notification No. 106/2004-Cus appointing the ADG (Vigilance) as the adjudicating authority for cases related to the Sunwear Group of Companies, of which the applicant companies are a part. The Tribunal rejected the challenge on jurisdictional grounds. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear appeals against the impugned order: The applicants contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the impugned order. The Tribunal dismissed this plea, stating that its jurisdiction in respect of drawback cases is ousted only if the order is passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). As no submissions were made on the merits of the demand, the Tribunal directed the pre-deposit of the entire duty amount by the applicants within eight weeks, waiving the pre-deposit of penalties on deposit and staying the recovery pending appeals. Failure to comply would result in the vacation of stay and dismissal of the appeals without further notice. The judgment highlights the importance of understanding the specific jurisdiction of adjudicating authorities and appellate bodies in customs cases. It emphasizes the legal framework governing such matters and the consequences of non-compliance with tribunal directives. The decision underscores the need for parties to adhere to procedural requirements and deadlines set by the tribunal to maintain the integrity of the appeals process.
|
