2015 (8) TMI 634 - HC - Central Excise

Housing of CESTAT Bench at Allahabad - Registrar has stated that the jurisdiction of the Bench at Allahabad is yet to be notified by the President CESTAT (under Section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) read with Section 35D of the Central Excise Act 1944 (1 of 1944), Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Held that - Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue has issued a notification dated 01.11.2013, which has been issued under the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Customs Act, 1962 and Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 notifying the creation of a Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad, pursuant to which a communication dated 13.11.2013 was issued to the Registrar, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi intimating the creation of the new Bench at Allahabad having jurisdiction to hear the appeals arising out from U.P., which is to be carved out from Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The creation of the Bench and the jurisdiction of this Bench at Allahabad has been done by the Union Cabinet by its decision dated 24.10.2013. This creation of Bench prima facie appears to be in exercise of the powers under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962. Once this is done, we fail to understand as to how the Registrar of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi contend in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that the jurisdiction at Allahabad is yet to be notified under Section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962, which only gives the power to the Appellate Tribunal to regulate its own procedure. Once the Bench has been created and the place has been notified nothing further else is required to be done. Court directed the Registrar, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi to issue necessary orders on this aspect on the filing of fresh matters at Allahabad on or before the next date of listing or explain the circumstances for not doing so.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availability of suitable accommodation for housing the Central Excise Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad.
2. Feasibility of utilizing the Income Tax building for housing the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
3. Lack of action by the Registrar in finding suitable premises for the Tribunal.
4. Notification of jurisdiction of the Bench at Allahabad by the President CESTAT.
5. Non-compliance with court orders regarding filing of fresh matters at Allahabad and sitting of the Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. The High Court directed the District Magistrate, Allahabad to gather information on the availability of a 15,000 sq.ft. land and building for housing the Central Excise Appellate Tribunal. Various locations, including the Central Administrative Tribunal building and Income Tax building, were suggested for consideration. The District Magistrate was instructed to submit a comprehensive report by a specified date.

2. The Court ordered the District Magistrate to inspect the Income Tax building and adjacent Central Excise building for feasibility of housing the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal temporarily or permanently. Cooperation from the Commissioners of Income Tax and Central Excise was mandated. Private buildings and land were also to be considered if government properties were not available.

3. The Registrar of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was directed to provide correspondence regarding efforts made to acquire suitable premises for the Tribunal at Allahabad. The Court sought an explanation for the lack of initiative in securing appropriate accommodation.

4. The Court highlighted the notification issued by the Government of India regarding the creation of a Bench at Allahabad with jurisdiction over U.P. The Registrar was instructed to explain the delay in notifying the jurisdiction, as the creation of the Bench appeared to have been done in accordance with relevant laws.

5. Non-compliance with court orders regarding the filing of fresh matters at Allahabad and the sitting of the Tribunal led to directions for the Registrar to ensure necessary orders were issued promptly. Failure to comply without valid reasons was deemed contempt of court.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues addressed in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the Court's directives and concerns regarding the establishment and functioning of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad.