2017 (11) TMI 666 - HC - Customs

Power of the registrar of the Tribunal to transfer a case before another bench with the consent of parties - Intervernor s application filed under Order 1 Rule 8A read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association through its President - Held that - Surprisingly, without any authority of law, the Registrar by the impugned Notification dated 10.10.2017 has passed an order that in all such appeals when both the parties to the appeal agree, the matter can be transferred and heard at the Principal Bench, New Delhi subject to the approval of the President. The intervenor, who is the CESTAT Bar Association are aggrieved by the aforesaid order stating that once the Union Cabinet has created, by Notification, a Bench at Allahabad to hear appeals arising from U.P., no such direction can be given to transfer such appeals in exercise of power under Section 129 of the Customs Act - It is to be remembered that the Gazettee Notification has been issued creating a Bench at Allahabad by carving out the jurisdiction from Delhi, as such the Registrar has no power to create any further jurisdiction apart from what has been created by the Gazettee Notification. A jurisdiction of the Bench can not, under any circumstances, be conferred merely upon the consent of the parties - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Enforcement of Notification for setting up CESTAT Bench at Allahabad; Jurisdiction and functioning of CESTAT Allahabad; Impugned Notification allowing transfer of appeals to Principal Bench, New Delhi; Registrar's authority to change jurisdiction; Power to transfer matters between Benches.

Enforcement of Notification for CESTAT Bench at Allahabad:
The case involved an intervener's application filed on behalf of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Bar Association seeking enforcement of a Notification issued by the Union Cabinet for setting up Benches of CESTAT, including one at Allahabad. The High Court noted that the creation of the Allahabad Bench was done by the Union Cabinet's decision dated 24.10.2013, and a circular was issued for filing appeals from Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad. The Court directed the Registrar to explain the reasons for delaying the functioning of the Allahabad Bench, which was subsequently established and operational.

Jurisdiction and Functioning of CESTAT Allahabad:
The High Court addressed the Registrar's decision to issue a notification allowing transfer of appeals from Allahabad Bench to the Principal Bench in New Delhi with the parties' consent. The CESTAT Bar Association objected to this, arguing that once the Union Cabinet had created the Allahabad Bench, the Registrar had no authority to transfer appeals. The Court emphasized that the Gazette Notification creating the Bench defined its jurisdiction, which could not be altered by the Registrar without legal authority.

Impugned Notification allowing transfer of appeals:
The Court highlighted that the Registrar's decision to change the jurisdiction of the Allahabad Bench through an impugned Notification was without legal basis. The Registrar's attempt to transfer matters between Benches without proper authority was challenged by the CESTAT Bar Association, emphasizing that jurisdiction could not be altered based solely on parties' consent.

Registrar's authority to change jurisdiction:
The judgment emphasized that the Registrar lacked the power to create additional jurisdiction beyond what was specified in the Gazette Notification establishing the Allahabad Bench. The Court reiterated that jurisdiction could not be conferred solely based on parties' agreement and that any alteration in jurisdiction required legal backing and could not be done arbitrarily.

Power to transfer matters between Benches:
Referring to a decision of the Madras High Court, the High Court highlighted that the Appellate Tribunal could transfer matters between Benches only through a judicial order, especially when transferring between Benches in different states. The judgment emphasized the need for a legal basis and judicial consideration when transferring matters between Benches to ensure adherence to established laws and procedures.

In conclusion, the High Court directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit, stayed the operation of the impugned order allowing transfer of appeals to the Principal Bench in New Delhi, and scheduled the case for further proceedings after the specified period. The judgment underscored the importance of legal procedures and jurisdictional integrity in the functioning of the CESTAT Benches, particularly in matters of transfer and jurisdictional changes.