2009 (9) TMI 472 - AT - Customs

Jurisdiction- Same SCN assigned for adjudication to 2 Commissioners. Vide order dated 02.08.2005 Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) Mumbai appointed to adjudicate show cause Notice dated 29.11.2004 and for the same purpose, under Notification No. 112/05-cus. (NT), dated 28.12.2005, Commissioner of Custom (Import) Nhava Sheva also appointed. Former Commissioner passed Order-in-Original on 31.12.2007 while latter passed order-in-original dated 18.03.2008. Assignment to adjudicate dated 28.12.2005 impliedly superseded the earlier assignment dated 02.08.2005. In other words, Commissioner of Custom (Adj.) Mumbai had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the show cause notice on or after 28.12.2005. Board s Notification and Orders should be deemed to be within the knowledge of departmental officer including the two Commissioners. Jurisdiction to adjudicate conferred on Commissioner of Custom (Import) Nhava Sheva by the Board and this jurisdiction stay with him. Order dated 31.12.2007 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Adj.) Mumbai is without jurisdiction and the same is set aside. Appeal allowed on the short ground of jurisdictional infirmity.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdictional question regarding the adjudication of a show-cause notice by two different Commissioners.

Analysis:
The appeals were directed against Order-in-Original No. 31/2008/CSE/CC/KS dated 31-12-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai in response to a show-cause notice issued by the DRI. Another order, Order-in-Original No. 185/07, dated 18-3-08, was passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva, in adjudication of the same show-cause notice. The central issue revolved around the jurisdictional question of which Commissioner had the authority to adjudicate the show-cause notice. The Tribunal considered the notifications issued by the Board under Section 4 of the Customs Act, which appointed different Commissioners at different times for adjudication purposes. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and held that the second order of adjudication would be considered non est out of two orders passed at different times. It was observed that the later assignment of jurisdiction impliedly superseded the earlier one, indicating that the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the show-cause notice after the subsequent assignment to the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) was without jurisdiction, necessitating it to be set aside on grounds of jurisdictional infirmity. Consequently, the appeals were allowed based on this limited ground, and the stay applications were disposed of accordingly.