Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 478 - AT - CustomsWaiver of pre deposit - Jurisdiction - Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act - Held that - When the show-cause notice was issued on 19/05/2005 in respect of some transactions took much before that, the DGCEI, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit and its officers did not have all India jurisdiction to issue show-cause notices under Section 17 & 28 of the Customs Act. These powers have been conferred on these officers by Notification No. 44/2011-Customs (NT) dated 06/07/2011. It is a settled position of law that every notification issued under the Customs Act has only prospective application unless retrospectively is specifically granted by an act of the parliament. Therefore, Notification No. 44/2011-Customs (NT) dated 06/07/2011 is only prospective and cannot be said to have any retrospective application. In these circumstances, the appellants have made out a prima facie case for grant of stay. Accordingly, we grant unconditional waiver from pre-deposit of dues adjudged against the appellants and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeals - Stay granted.
Issues:
Jurisdiction of DGCEI in issuing show-cause notice, retrospective effect of Notification No. 44/2011-Customs (NT), applicability of previous Tribunal decisions, grant of stay. Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of DGCEI: The appellant raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of DGCEI, Ahmedabad in issuing the show-cause notice and conducting adjudication proceedings. The appellant argued that prior to Notification No. 44/2011-Customs (NT), the DGCEI did not have the jurisdiction to issue notices for imports through Mumbai ports. The appellant relied on previous Tribunal decisions such as C.K. Geever, Swami Fashions, and Copier Force India Ltd., where the jurisdiction of DGCEI officers was questioned. The appellant requested a stay based on the applicability of these decisions. 2. Retrospective Effect of Notification: The Revenue representative acknowledged that Notification No. 44/2011-Customs (NT) did not have retrospective effect. However, it was argued that the show-cause notice's invalidity did not warrant quashing the impugned order. The Revenue requested the appellants to be put to term despite the jurisdictional issue raised by the appellant. 3. Tribunal's Decision: After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that at the time of issuing the show-cause notice in 2005, the DGCEI did not have nationwide jurisdiction under the Customs Act. The Tribunal noted that Notification No. 44/2011-Customs (NT) only had prospective application unless specifically granted retrospective effect by Parliament. As the notification did not have retrospective application, the appellants established a prima facie case for a stay. Consequently, the Tribunal granted an unconditional waiver from pre-deposit of dues and stayed the recovery during the appeal's pendency. This judgment addressed the jurisdictional issue concerning the DGCEI's authority to issue show-cause notices, the retrospective effect of Notification No. 44/2011-Customs (NT), and the applicability of previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal's decision to grant a stay was based on the lack of nationwide jurisdiction of DGCEI officers at the time of issuing the notice and the prospective nature of the notification, highlighting the importance of legal provisions and precedents in determining the outcome of the case.
|