9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 697 - AT - CustomsMaintainability of the appeal - whether or not there exists jurisdiction for this Tribunal to decide the matter on merits? - HELD THAT - Honourable High Court of Delhi has in its decision in Principal Commissioner of C.Ex. Delhi-I v. Space Telelink Ltd 2017 (3) TMI 1599 - DELHI HIGH COURT considered the effect of stay of proceedings by the Honourable Supreme Court and has held that We are therefore of the opinion that the passing of the interim order dated February 21 1991 by the Delhi High Court staying the operation of the order of the appellate authority dated January 7 1991 does not have the effect of reviving the appeal which had been dismissed by the appellate authority by its order dated January 7 1991 and it cannot be said that after February 21 1991 the said appeal stood revived and was pending before the appellate authority. On a plain reading of Section 129A(1) and the applicable first proviso along with its clause (c) to our mind the legislative intent is emphatically made clear by the language of the statute couched in prohibitive terms twice over. Moreover unlike the wordings of Section 130(1) the legislature having consciously omitted the phrase among other things coupled with the doubly emphasised prohibition in the negative clearly conveys the legislative intent that an order related to simpliciter payment of drawback as provided in Chapter X and the rules made thereunder is sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of this Tribunal from entertaining the appeal - if the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128A relates to any of the aforesaid aspects then by virtue of clause (c) to proviso to Section 128A (1) the jurisdiction of this Tribunal stands statutorily excluded and the appeal shall not lie to this Appellate forum. The concurrent jurisdiction of the Revisionary Authority as well as of this Tribunal to deal with orders relating to drawback albeit arising from different hierarchical adjudicatory levels at times perplexes the party as to the forum before which they are to pursue their remedy when aspects relating to valuation and classification also get intertwined. Occasionally while pursuing such remedy before the revisionary authority it may result in foreclosing the otherwise available appellate remedy before constitutional courts even for some deserving litigants - There is always a presumption in favour of constitutionality of such provisions legislated. Therefore such litany of travails are not ones that the Tribunal a creature of statute can address by usurping a jurisdiction under any misconceived notion of that being its responsibility while functioning as sentinel on the qui vive for rendering justice. Jurisdictional High Court holding that Section 129A of the Customs Act 1962 has explicitly stated about the exclusion of Chapter X and further since the Honourable High Court has also granted its imprimatur to the decision in PREMIUM INTERTRADE PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS MUMBAI 2000 (10) TMI 661 - CEGAT MUMBAI that the phrase payment of drawback used in the proviso to Section 129A would prevent the Appellate Tribunal from dealing with cases involving recovery of drawback in adherence to such binding precedents it is held that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is ousted in the present matters and the defect raised by the Registry is in order. Conclusion - The Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal concerning the recovery of drawback as it was related to the payment of drawback under Chapter X and the rules made thereunder. The appeal filed is not maintainable and cannot be entertained and is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue considered by the Tribunal was whether it had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal concerning the recovery of duty drawback already sanctioned and paid under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995, read with Section 75 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. Specifically, the question was whether the Tribunal could hear an appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) related to the recovery of duty drawback, given the jurisdictional limitations set out in Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The legal framework involved the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Section 129A(1), which outlines the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal. The first proviso to this section specifies that no appeal shall lie to the Tribunal in respect of any order relating to the payment of drawback as provided in Chapter X and the rules made thereunder. Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules pertains to the repayment of erroneous or excess payment of drawback. The Tribunal considered precedents such as the decisions in Ravi Technoforge Pvt Ltd and the Delhi High Court's judgment in Commissioner of Customs (Exports) v. Sans Frontiers. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Asean Cableship Pte Ltd v. CC, which dealt with the interpretation of jurisdictional provisions under the Customs Act. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Tribunal examined whether the recovery of drawback, which involves repayment of amounts erroneously or excessively paid, falls within the jurisdictional exclusion under Section 129A(1). It noted that the phrase "payment of drawback" in the proviso encompasses both the initial payment and any subsequent recovery actions, as these are intrinsically linked. The Tribunal also analyzed the effect of the Supreme Court's stay on the Delhi High Court's decision in Sans Frontiers. It concluded that the stay does not negate the reasoning of the Delhi High Court's judgment, and thus, the jurisdictional exclusion remains applicable. Key Evidence and Findings The Tribunal relied on the statutory language of Section 129A(1) and its proviso, as well as the relevant rules under the Drawback Rules, to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. It found that the legislative intent was clear in excluding matters related to the payment and recovery of drawback from the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Application of Law to Facts The Tribunal applied the statutory provisions and precedents to the facts of the case, concluding that the appeal concerning the recovery of drawback was indeed related to the payment of drawback as provided in Chapter X and the rules made thereunder. Consequently, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Tribunal considered the appellant's argument that the recovery of drawback is distinct from the payment of drawback and thus should fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. However, it rejected this argument, emphasizing the inseverable link between payment and recovery, both governed by the same statutory and regulatory framework. The Tribunal also addressed the appellant's reliance on the Ravi Technoforge decision, noting that the Delhi High Court had disagreed with that decision, and the Supreme Court's stay did not alter the reasoning of the High Court's judgment. Conclusions The Tribunal concluded that the jurisdictional exclusion under Section 129A(1) applied to the appeal in question, as it was related to the payment and recovery of drawback. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning The Tribunal emphasized the legislative intent behind Section 129A(1) and its proviso, stating: "The legislative intent is emphatically made clear by the language of the statute couched in prohibitive terms, twice over... an order 'related to' simpliciter, payment of drawback as provided in Chapter X, and the rules made thereunder, is sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of this Tribunal." Core Principles Established The Tribunal reinforced the principle that jurisdictional exclusions under statutory provisions must be interpreted in accordance with legislative intent and the statutory language. It also highlighted the importance of considering the entire regulatory framework governing a particular issue, such as the payment and recovery of drawback, as a unified whole. Final Determinations on Each Issue The Tribunal determined that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal concerning the recovery of drawback, as it was related to the payment of drawback under Chapter X and the rules made thereunder. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
|
