2024 (4) TMI 643 - SCH - Customs

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - compounding of offence - CESTAT has jurisdiction to entertain an application vis-a-vis compounding of an offence under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962, or not - HELD THAT - Bearing in mind the submissions of learned senior counsel and also the fact that the CESTAT has now remanded the matter to the Chief Commissioner to reconsider the application filed for compounding of the offence under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962, the matter needs no interference. The Chief Commissioner is now to re-consider the said application in accordance with law. The Chief Commissioner to dispose of the said application filed under Section 137 of the Customs Act as expeditiously as possible. SLP disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the jurisdiction of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to entertain an application regarding the compounding of an offense under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the appropriate forum for seeking relief in such matters.

Jurisdiction of CESTAT:
The learned senior counsel for the petitioner emphasized that CESTAT does not have jurisdiction to entertain an application regarding the compounding of an offense under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was pointed out that CESTAT had not passed an order on the merits of the application but had instead remanded the matter to the Chief Commissioner for reconsideration. The petitioner contended that the respondent had rightly filed a writ petition, which should have been considered on its merits by the High Court.

Decision and Directions:
After considering the submissions made by the counsel and noting that CESTAT had remanded the matter to the Chief Commissioner for reevaluation of the application for compounding the offense under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Court declined to interfere in the matter. The Chief Commissioner was directed to re-examine the application in accordance with the law and dispose of it expeditiously. It was clarified that if either party is dissatisfied with the Chief Commissioner's decision, a writ petition could be filed before the High Court. The Court kept open the question of CESTAT's jurisdiction to entertain the appeal due to the High Court's order allowing the respondent to pursue the appellate remedy.

Disposition of the Special Leave Petition:
The special leave petition was disposed of in the aforementioned terms, and any pending applications were deemed disposed of as well. The Court's decision focused on allowing the Chief Commissioner to reconsider the application for compounding the offense under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962, while preserving the right of either party to seek redress through a writ petition if dissatisfied with the Chief Commissioner's decision.