2005 (2) TMI 164 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order of Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Competency of Assistant Director, DRI to issue show cause notice, Legality of impugned order, Competency to raise demand under Customs Act, Jurisdiction of proceedings, Upholding of demand and penalties by Appellate Tribunal.

Issue 1 - Challenge to Tribunal Order:
The appeal challenged an order by the Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant raised six questions, including the competency of the Assistant Director, DRI to issue a show cause notice, legality of the impugned order, and the jurisdiction of the concerned authority to raise demand under the Customs Act without referring to a specific section.

Issue 2 - Competency of Assistant Director, DRI:
The appellant questioned the competence of the Assistant Director, DRI to issue a show cause notice to a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU) when lacking administrative control over the EOU. Reference was made to a Supreme Court case regarding the rank of officers authorized to issue such notices. However, the Tribunal relied on a circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and rejected the appellant's contention, stating that subsequent circulars did not conflict with the earlier circular.

Issue 3 - Legality of Impugned Order:
The appellant argued that the impugned order was illegal as it contradicted circulars issued by the CBEC and decisions of the Appellate Tribunal in other cases. The Tribunal, however, found no infirmity in its order, citing the circulars and lack of conflict among them. The appellant's reliance on subsequent circulars was deemed unfounded, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 4 - Competency to Raise Demand under Customs Act:
The question arose whether the concerned authority was competent to raise a demand of duties under Section 72 of the Customs Act without referring to Section 28. The appellant contended that the demand should have been issued under Section 28, but the Tribunal did not find any fault in the impugned order in this regard.

Issue 5 - Jurisdiction of Proceedings:
The appellant argued that the initiation of proceedings against them was without jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal did not find any grounds to intervene in the impugned order, dismissing the appeal as no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision.

Issue 6 - Upholding of Demand and Penalties:
Lastly, the appellant questioned the Appellate Tribunal's decision to uphold the demand of duties and penalties against them. Despite the appellant's submissions, the High Court found no legal basis to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.