9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 307 - HC - CustomsDemand under Foreign Travel Tax (FTT) - Competent jurisdiction against the order of Commissioner (appeals) under Rule 11 of the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989 - Held that - above, against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, only revision is provided and that too, this revision lies to the Central Government. CESTAT does not come into the picture at all in these Rules. Therefore, it is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of CESTAT to entertain such an appeal and such an order would clearly be null and void in the eyes of law as also has been seen in the aforementioned cases. Respondent was misled by none else but by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) who misguided the respondent by stating that appeal under Section 129(A) of the Customs Act could be preferred against his order before the CESTAT. Therefore, while granting opportunity to the respondent to prefer revision against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), we direct if such a revision if preferred within two months, the revision shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and shall be entertained on merits by the Central Government.
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to hear an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Rule 11 of the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989. Analysis: The judgment delves into the issue of whether CESTAT had the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed by the respondent against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Rule 11 of the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989. The court examined the statutory framework established by the Finance Act, 1979, which introduced the Foreign Travel Tax (FTT) under Chapter-V. The charging Section 35 of the Act and penalties under Section 38 were scrutinized to understand the legal obligations of passengers and carriers regarding FTT. The Central Government was empowered to make Rules under Section 40 for the effective implementation of Chapter-5, leading to the formulation of the Inland Travel Tax Rules, 1989. The court highlighted the adjudication process for penalties in case of violations, assigning this authority to the Assistant Collector of Customs under Rule 9. The procedure for imposing penalties under Rule 10, including the right to appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Delhi, was outlined. Additionally, the revisionary powers of the Central Government under Rule 13 were discussed, emphasizing the hierarchical structure for addressing disputes related to FTT. In the specific case at hand, the respondent's appeal to CESTAT was challenged on grounds of jurisdiction. The court referenced legal precedents to emphasize that the right to appeal is a statutory provision and must be strictly adhered to. It was established that CESTAT lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as no provision existed under the relevant Rules for such appeals. The court cited cases to support the notion that a defect of jurisdiction renders any resulting order null and void in the eyes of the law, regardless of consent or misstatements. The judgment concluded that the appeal before CESTAT was not maintainable due to the absence of a statutory provision for such appeals. However, acknowledging the respondent's reliance on misleading information from the office of the Commissioner (Appeals), the court granted an opportunity for revision against the order, ensuring it would not be dismissed on grounds of limitation. To address the respondent's undue filing of the appeal, the court imposed costs on the petitioner. The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the limitations of jurisdiction in legal proceedings.
|
