2018 (5) TMI 1624 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake application - smuggling of the gold - Order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) - Jurisdiction of Tribunal to decide the case in view of the proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - The issue of jurisdiction now raised by the Revenue through the present application cannot been entertained as it rests on a mixed question of facts and law, which if considered, would amount to review of the order, a jurisdiction not conferred by the statute on this Tribunal - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide a case involving smuggling of gold through an airport.

Analysis:
The case involved an application filed by the Revenue seeking Rectification of Mistake in the Tribunal's order dated 28.7.2017. The Revenue argued that the issue of smuggling gold through SVP International Airport, Ahmedabad, falls under the proviso to Sec. 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and thus, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide the case. On the other hand, the appellant's advocate contended that since the smuggled goods were seized from a residential premises, it should be considered a town seizure, giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to decide the case. The advocate referred to various judgments to support this argument. The Tribunal noted that it had already considered the evidences and arguments from both sides before passing the original order. The issue of jurisdiction raised by the Revenue in the rectification application was deemed to be a mixed question of facts and law, which, if entertained, would amount to a review of the order. The Tribunal cited the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, Mumbai vs. RDC Concrete (India) P Ltd 2011, emphasizing that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to review orders. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to the settled law that a plea not raised and argued during the hearing cannot be allowed through a rectification application. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's Rectification of Mistake application, deeming it devoid of merit.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in a case involving smuggling of gold through an airport. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the Revenue's application for rectification of mistake is based on established legal principles and precedents, emphasizing the limitations on the Tribunal's authority to review orders and consider new arguments not raised during the original hearing.