9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 1378 - HC - CustomsAppeal filled u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Admissibility of benefit of exemption under Notification nos. 21 of 2002 and 61 of 2007 - Conflicting views of the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the larger Bench of the CESTAT has already answered the reference on 8.8.2022. It had directed the appeals to be listed before the regular division Bench for hearing. We are given to understand that those appeals are already heard and hearing of all the three matters have been completed on both the sides and the stage is for pronouncement of judgment. That be the case, in our opinion, the present appeals would not fall under the definition of an appeal under Section 130 of the Act. These petitions being prematured, we do not entertain them without entering into the merits for keeping all issues open including those challenged before this Court for both the sides, to be agitated before the CESTAT in pending appeals and before this Court eventually, if the need arises. Let the disposal of these appeals not prejudice the rights of either sides.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of the Customs Act, 1962, specifically Section 130, and the conflicting views of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on the admissibility of benefit of exemption under Notification nos. 21 of 2002 and 61 of 2007. The questions of law raised include violation of conditions, classification of imported aircraft, examination of permissions granted by DGCA, non-publication of tariff, and correctness of previous decisions. Interpretation of Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962: The appeal was filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 challenging an order dated 8.8.2022. The larger Bench of the CESTAT had addressed the reference raised before it, leading to conflicting views expressed by different Division Benches of the Tribunal. The issue revolved around the admissibility of benefit of exemption under Notification nos. 21 of 2002 and 61 of 2007. The larger Bench passed an interim order on 8.8.2022, which was challenged by raising specific questions of law. Conflicting Views of CESTAT: The Division Bench of the CESTAT noted contradictory views expressed in different cases, specifically Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi V/s Sameer Gehlot and King Rotors & Air Charter Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C. (ACC & Import), Mumbai. This discrepancy led to a reference to the larger Bench of the CESTAT, which passed an interim order on 8.8.2022. The questions raised included issues related to violation of conditions, classification of imported aircraft, examination of permissions granted by DGCA, and non-publication of tariff. Premature Nature of Appeals: The judgment highlighted that the larger Bench of the CESTAT had already answered the reference on 8.8.2022 and directed the appeals to be listed before the regular division Bench for further proceedings. As the appeals were already heard and completed, the Court deemed them premature and not falling under the definition of an appeal under Section 130 of the Act. Therefore, the petitions were not entertained at that stage to avoid prejudicing the rights of either party, allowing all issues to be raised and addressed before the appropriate forums.
|
