9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 95 - HC - CustomsJurisdiction of CESTAT - order has been passed by a judicial member only and not by the Bench as envisaged under Section 129C of the Act - Held that - as per section 129C, if the value of the goods confiscated without right of redemption exceeds ₹ 50 lakhs, a single member of the CESTAT is not competent to decide the appeal in respect thereof - the impugned order passed by single member of the Tribunal is without jurisdiction and in violation of Section 129C of the Act - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues: Jurisdiction of CESTAT in deciding appeals under Section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962.
The High Court addressed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Lucknow against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The main argument raised was that the impugned order by CESTAT was without jurisdiction as it was passed by a single judicial member, not by a Bench as required under Section 129C of the Act. The Court allowed the respondent to address this aspect. The Court heard arguments from both parties, including Senior Counsel for the respondent, on whether the order was in breach of Section 129C. The Court highlighted that Section 129C mandates the functioning of CESTAT through Benches constituted by the President, consisting of a judicial member and a technical member, subject to certain conditions. The Court specifically referred to Sub-section 4 of Section 129C, which allows a single member to decide a case assigned to a Bench if the value of confiscated goods does not exceed fifty lakh rupees. However, in this case, the value of the goods confiscated was significantly higher at ?3,36,00,000 without any option for redemption. Therefore, the appeal was beyond the competence of a single member of CESTAT to decide. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned order passed by a single member was without jurisdiction and violated Section 129C. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to CESTAT for a fresh decision on merits within three months, emphasizing compliance with the law.
|
