2018 (2) TMI 495 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - case of petitioner is that the officer, who is manning the office of the third respondent, is equivalent in rank to the Commissioner of Customs and that therefore, he cannot decide the matter - Held that the petitioner is unable to lay his hands on the Notification of the Central Board of Excise and Customs appointing an officer in the rank of Principal Commissioner as the Revisional Authority under the Customs Act and N/N. 27/17 CE (NT) dated 23.11.2017 pertains only to appeals arising under the Central Excise Act - the writ petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent is held to be not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order in appeal dated 28.6.2016 affirming the order passed by the second respondent dated 26.4.2016. Jurisdiction of the officer manning the office of the third respondent equivalent to the Commissioner of Customs. Notification appointing an officer in the rank of Principal Commissioner as the Revisional Authority under the Customs Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner approached the Court challenging an order in appeal dated 28.6.2016, which upheld the decision of the second respondent made on 26.4.2016. The petitioner contended that the officer at the office of the third respondent, where a revision was preferred, held a rank equivalent to the Commissioner of Customs, raising concerns about the officer's authority to decide the matter. The petitioner sought to challenge the order passed by the first respondent, citing the officer's rank as a point of contention.

The Court acknowledged that there was a time when the office of the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, was manned by an officer equivalent in rank to the Commissioner of Customs. However, referencing a case from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, it was noted that such orders were deemed to be without jurisdiction. Subsequently, an officer in the cadre of the Principal Commissioner (RA) and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India was appointed. Notably, for cases originating from Tamil Nadu, the Revisional Authority was situated in Mumbai.

The petitioner's counsel highlighted the unavailability of the Notification appointing an officer in the rank of Principal Commissioner as the Revisional Authority under the Customs Act. The counsel pointed out that the existing notification dated 23.11.2017 only pertained to appeals under the Central Excise Act. In response, the Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents assured that if the Notification under the Customs Act had not been issued, it would be done shortly, allowing the petitioner to pursue the revision before the third respondent.

Consequently, the Court held that the writ petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent was not maintainable and dismissed the petition without costs. The connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions (WMPs) were also dismissed. However, considering that the petitioner had already filed a revision petition before the third respondent, the petitioner was granted liberty to proceed with the revision in accordance with the law.