2017 (11) TMI 1891 - HC - Customs

Suspension or revocation of the approval granted to the Appellant as custodian - HELD THAT - The appeal admitted on substantial questions of law. The matters are fixed for final hearing on 29th November, 2017.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of CESTAT in confirming demand of cost recovery charges under specific regulations.
2. Justification of penalties imposed by Commissioner of Customs for non-compliance.
3. Validity of orders passed by Commissioner of Customs regarding approval suspension.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the orders passed.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of CESTAT in confirming demand of cost recovery charges
The substantial questions of law raised in the appeals question the jurisdiction of the CESTAT in confirming the demands of cost recovery charges under specific regulations. The appeals challenge the validity of the demands amounting to significant sums along with interest, contending that the CESTAT may have erred in upholding these demands. The provisions of regulation 5(2) read with regulation 6(1)(o) of the HCCAR, 2009 are central to this issue, with the appellants questioning the legality and jurisdiction of the demands made by the Commissioner of Income Tax.

Issue 2: Penalties for non-compliance
Another crucial issue in these appeals pertains to the penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs for alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and related regulations. The appeals question the justification of these penalties, especially the substantial amounts imposed, and seek a review of the penalties in light of the legal provisions governing such penalties. The appellants challenge the penalties of ?50,000 and ?20,000 imposed in different cases, raising concerns about the compliance requirements and the penalty imposition process.

Issue 3: Validity of orders regarding approval suspension
The appeals also contest the validity of the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs regarding the suspension or revocation of the approval granted to the appellants as custodians in specific locations. The appellants question the legality and justification of these orders, particularly in relation to the principles of natural justice. The issue of whether the orders are in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the maxim "Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa," is central to this challenge.

Issue 4: Compliance with principles of natural justice
Lastly, the appeals raise concerns about the compliance with the principles of natural justice in the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellants argue that certain orders should be declared non-est in the eyes of the law due to alleged violations of natural justice principles. The appeals seek a thorough review of the orders dated 01.03.2013, 6.11.2012, and others, emphasizing the importance of fair procedures and unbiased decision-making in administrative actions.

In conclusion, the appeals before the Rajasthan High Court involve complex legal issues surrounding jurisdiction, penalty imposition, order validity, and compliance with principles of natural justice. The court will need to delve into the specifics of the regulations, legal provisions, and procedural fairness to adjudicate on the substantial questions of law raised in these appeals.