2015 (3) TMI 587 - AT - Customs

Rectification of Mistake - Notification 112/2005 dated 28.05.2005 - Held that - impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner on 18.03.2008, has been set aside on the ground that the learned Commissioner was having lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate the impugned show-cause notice as the same was assigned to Shri. K.K.Srivastava, Commissioner of Customs (Adj.). It is further recorded in the order that the appointment of Shri K.K. Srivastava, Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) was withdrawn on 27.08.2009 which means that when this matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva, he was not having the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the application filed by the Revenue - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of Mistake in Tribunal's order regarding jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs (Import), JNCH, Nhava Sheva.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an application for Rectification of Mistake in the Tribunal's order, arguing that the order dropping the original order was based on an incorrect interpretation of Notification No. 112/2005 dated 28.05.2005. The Revenue contended that the impugned show-cause notice was always answerable to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs (Imports), JNCH, Nhava Sheva, and not to the Commissioner of Customs (Adj.) as previously assigned. The Tribunal reviewed its previous order and found that the Commissioner who initially adjudicated the case lacked jurisdiction due to the assignment issue. It was noted that the subsequent withdrawal of the appointment of the Commissioner of Customs (Adj.) meant that the case was not properly adjudicated. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application, affirming that the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva, did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case at the time.

This judgment highlights the importance of jurisdiction in adjudicating cases. The Tribunal scrutinized the assignment of the case to the Commissioner of Customs (Adj.) and the subsequent withdrawal of the appointment to establish the lack of jurisdiction in the initial adjudication. By emphasizing the correct jurisdictional authority, the Tribunal upheld the principle that cases must be adjudicated by the appropriate authority to ensure legal validity and procedural fairness. The decision underscores the significance of adherence to jurisdictional protocols in legal proceedings to maintain the integrity and legitimacy of the adjudication process.