9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 314 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of appeal to Tribunal - Grant of CHA License - Regulations of 2004 were in force - Held that - It is evident that appeals to the Tribunal are maintainable at the behest of persons who are aggrieved by any order of a Principal Commissioner or by Commissioner of Customs in her capacity as an Adjudicating Authority . It is important to underline this aspect because but for Regulation 21 even applicants who were declined a licence would not be able to avail of the remedy of appeal to CESTAT. Unless the controlling parent enactment is expressed or by force of necessary implication, it can be inevitably interfered with the subject matter of a particular dispute, is appealable, appeals cannot be claimed as a matter of right - the order of the Commissioner was styled as an order-in-original or even that it mistakenly pointed to an appellate remedy under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, was not in any manner conclusive or whether such appeal was maintainable. This Court is therefore of the opinion that the CESTAT s decision is sound and does not call for an interference. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues: Challenge to grant of Customs Broker license under CBLR 2013, maintainability of appeal to CESTAT, interpretation of Section 129A of Customs Act.
Analysis: 1. Challenge to Grant of Customs Broker License under CBLR 2013: The case involved a challenge to the grant of a Customs Broker license under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR 2013). The Commissioner of Customs had granted the license despite objections from the Department of Revenue Intelligence. The appellant sought to challenge this order, arguing that the license was granted under the previous Regulations of 2004, as CBLR 2013 was not in force at the time. The court noted that the license was granted under the applicable regulations at that time, and the objections and reservations were duly considered before granting the license. 2. Maintainability of Appeal to CESTAT: The key issue raised was the maintainability of the appeal to the Customs, Excise and Service Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appellant argued that the order-in-original itself stated that it was appealable to CESTAT, and Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 supported the appeal. However, the Tribunal disagreed and rejected the appeal. The Revenue contended that every order made under the Customs Act or regulations framed under it would be appealable, including decisions by the Commissioner as an adjudicating authority. The court analyzed Section 129A and Regulation 21 of CBLR 2013 to determine the scope of appeal to CESTAT and concluded that appeals were maintainable for persons aggrieved by orders of the Commissioner acting as an adjudicating authority. 3. Interpretation of Section 129A of Customs Act: The court delved into the interpretation of Section 129A of the Customs Act, which provides for appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. It highlighted that Regulation 21 of CBLR 2013 allowed Customs Brokers aggrieved by orders of the Commissioner to prefer an appeal to CESTAT. The court emphasized that Regulation 21 created an exception to the general rule that appeals lie only against adjudicatory orders. It underscored that the right to appeal is a statutory mandate and cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless provided for by the controlling enactment. The court upheld the decision of CESTAT, stating that the order of the Commissioner, even if styled as an order-in-original, did not automatically make it appealable under Section 129A. In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that no question of law arose, and affirmed the decision of CESTAT as sound and not necessitating interference. The judgment highlighted the importance of statutory provisions in determining the scope and validity of appeals, particularly in the context of Customs regulations and adjudicatory orders.
|
