2015 (9) TMI 1368 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - Seizure of goods - Section 110(A) - whether the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner under section 110(A) of the Customs Act 1962 lies before the Tribunal or not - Held that - From the provisions of Section 110A of the Act it is a clear mandate that under section 110A the decision is to be taken by the Adjudicating Authority for imposing conditions for release of seized goods provisionally. - any person aggrieved by decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority may appeal to this Tribunal. Therefore, under section 110A the order of provisional release is being passed by Commissioner Customs as adjudicating authority and aggrieved from the said order appeal can be filed before this Tribunal under section 129 A(1) of the Act. With these observations, we are not in agreement with the decision of the larger bench of this Tribunal in the case of Akanksha Syntax Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (9) TMI 138 - CESTAT MUMBAI and same is required to be reconsidered by a Larger Bench. Registry is directed to place the records before the Hon ble President for consideration and to constitute the Larger Bench of this Tribunal to decide subject issue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of appeal against the order under Section 110(A) of the Customs Act 1962 before the Tribunal.
2. Interpretation and application of judicial precedents and ratio decidendi.
3. Binding nature of decisions from higher courts and larger benches.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Appeal under Section 110(A) of the Customs Act 1962:

The primary issue is whether an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 110(A) of the Customs Act 1962 lies before the Tribunal. The Revenue argued that such appeals are not maintainable based on the precedent set by the Larger Bench in the case of Akanksha Syntax Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Mumbai. This decision was further upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, and no subsequent High Court decisions have reversed this stance. The Tribunal's decision in Akanksha Syntax Pvt. Ltd. held that orders under Section 110(A) are interim and thus not appealable before the Tribunal.

On the contrary, the appellants argued that the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Giriraj Syntax Pvt. Ltd. recognized the maintainability of such appeals under Section 129(A) of the Customs Act 1962. The appellants further contended that the decision of the Tribunal in Akanksha Syntax Pvt. Ltd. did not consider the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajkumar Shivhare, making it per incuriam.

2. Interpretation and Application of Judicial Precedents and Ratio Decidendi:

The appellants emphasized the necessity of understanding judicial precedents and ratio decidendi. They argued that a precedent is binding only when it directly addresses the legal problem disclosed by the facts. They highlighted that the ratio decidendi must be isolated from the judgment and not every statement made by the judge constitutes a binding precedent. The appellants cited the High Court of Rajasthan's judgment in Giriraj Syntax Pvt. Ltd., which held that appeals against orders under Section 110(A) lie before the appropriate authority under Section 129(A) of the Customs Act 1962.

3. Binding Nature of Decisions from Higher Courts and Larger Benches:

The appellants argued that the decisions of the High Courts, such as in Giriraj Syntax Pvt. Ltd., are binding on the Tribunal. They contended that the Tribunal's decision in Akanksha Syntax Pvt. Ltd. is per incuriam as it did not consider the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajkumar Shivhare. The Tribunal noted that the High Courts have not specifically examined the issue of jurisdiction regarding appeals under Section 110(A).

Tribunal's Conclusion:

The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 110(A) and Section 129(A) of the Customs Act 1962. It concluded that appeals against decisions or orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority are maintainable before the Tribunal. The Tribunal disagreed with the decision in Akanksha Syntax Pvt. Ltd., stating that it requires reconsideration by a Larger Bench. The Tribunal directed the registry to refer the matter to the Hon'ble President for constituting a Larger Bench to decide whether an appeal lies before the Tribunal against the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 110(A) of the Customs Act 1962 for provisional release of goods.

Order Pronounced:

The Tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on 25.5.2015, directing the registry to place the records before the Hon'ble President for consideration and to constitute a Larger Bench to decide the issue of maintainability of appeals under Section 110(A).