2018 (1) TMI 1026 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - seizure of goods - SCN was issued by an officer exercising powers under the Central Excise Act, 1944 - establishing corelation of the confiscated goods to the duty paying documents - Held that - this was a fairly old Appeal and reaching for hearing before the Tribunal after 13 years. If the Tribunal was of the view that there is an issue for consideration with regard to corelation of the confiscated goods to the duty paying document, namely Bill of Entry or otherwise, but that issue was not framed, nor answered by the order-in-original, then, fairness requires an opportunity to be granted to the appellant. - no useful purpose would be served by keeping this Appeal pending in this Court. After bringing to the notice of the Tribunal the twin aspects of this controversy, namely, on jurisdiction and merits, as also inviting its attention to the apparent inconsistency in its findings and conclusions, we have no alternative but to set aside the order under Appeal. While we proceed to set aside the same at the instance of an assessee, who is equally to blame himself for not being fully ready to argue the case, we think that balance can be struck. We accordingly strike a balance between the rights and equities by directing that, on the appellant/assessee before us paying costs quantified at ₹ 50,000/to the Revenue within a period of four weeks from today, the Appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal to stand revived for a decision afresh on all the points which we have summarized above. Appeal disposed off.

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional competence of the authority to issue show cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Delay in hearing the Appeal before the Tribunal.
3. Corelation of confiscated goods to duty paying documents.
4. Fairness in framing issues by the Tribunal.
5. Compliance with the order-in-original.

Jurisdictional Competence of the Authority:
The appellant challenged the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, raising questions on the competence of the authority issuing the show cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the show cause notice was issued by an officer under the Central Excise Act, not the Customs Act, which questions the jurisdiction of the official initiating the proceedings. Citing relevant judgments, the appellant contended that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage if it is a pure question of law. The High Court found merit in the complaint regarding the delay in hearing and the jurisdictional issue raised, leading to the admission of the Appeal on newly added substantial questions of law.

Delay in Hearing the Appeal:
The appellant highlighted the significant delay in the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal before the Tribunal, which took 13 years from the date of the order-in-original. This delay was considered a valid concern, emphasizing the need for fairness in granting the appellant an opportunity to address issues raised during the proceedings. The High Court acknowledged the delay and the importance of providing a fair opportunity to the appellant to present their case adequately.

Corelation of Confiscated Goods to Duty Paying Documents:
The Tribunal's order under Appeal raised the issue of corelation of confiscated goods to duty paying documents, which the appellant argued was not the primary issue in the case. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's focus on this issue took them by surprise, as it was not a central point of contention during the proceedings. The High Court observed an apparent inconsistency in the Tribunal's findings and conclusions regarding this issue, leading to the admission of the Appeal on grounds related to this aspect.

Fairness in Framing Issues by the Tribunal:
The High Court noted discrepancies in the Tribunal's observations regarding the issues involved in the case, particularly concerning the jurisdiction and competence of the officials involved in the proceedings. The Court emphasized the importance of clarity and fairness in framing issues by the Tribunal to ensure a just and thorough consideration of the case. The High Court intervened to set aside the Tribunal's order and directed a fresh decision on all relevant points, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of old matters while upholding the principles of complete justice.

Compliance with the Order-in-Original:
During the proceedings, concerns were raised regarding the full compliance with the order-in-original. The appellant claimed to have redeemed the goods and paid the entire amount as directed in the order. The High Court directed the Tribunal to clarify this aspect and ensure the recovery of any outstanding sum from the appellant, maintaining fairness and equity in the resolution of the case.

← Previous Next →