Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2021 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1110 - AT - CustomsDirections about the decision on issue of jurisdiction have not still been complied with in the Order under challenge - issuance of G-Card in the name of Shri Lalit Gupta or not - HELD THAT - The allegations of the appellant against Shri Lalit Gupta who though was the Manager of appellant for operating their work at Delhi Customs but was never authorised to be the G-card holder by appellant, cannot be ascertained unless and until requisite documents are called by the adjudicating authority below to be scrutinised in respect thereof - The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) also need to be scrutinised as to whether the said internal mechanism was enabling M/s. Wijeta Impex and Logistics to have knowledge about filed shipping bills and to sign the acknowledgements thereof. Both the findings are relevant for the proper adjudication of the impugned appeal specially when the appellant as CHA is aggrieved of misconduct of Shri Lalit Gupta. Matter remanded back for fresh decision on merits specifically on issue of jurisdiction as was directed vide the order of first remand passed by this Tribunal - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
- Compliance with directions regarding jurisdiction in the Order under challenge - Service of impugned show cause notice on the appellant - Allegations against the Manager of the appellant for unauthorized actions - Scrutiny of internal mechanism of M/s. Wijeta Impex and Logistics for knowledge about shipping bills - Reduction of penalty and setting aside the revocation of license Analysis: The judgment before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi revolves around several key issues. Firstly, the compliance with directions regarding jurisdiction in the Order under challenge is questioned. The appellant argues that despite the order being passed on merits, it remains silent on the crucial issue of jurisdiction. The appellant emphasizes the lack of compliance with previous directions related to deciding the issue of jurisdiction, specifically concerning the non-service of the show cause notice on the appellant. Secondly, the issue of service of the impugned show cause notice on the appellant is raised. The appellant highlights that the notice was not served at the Secunderabad address, as informed to Customs authorities, leading to a lack of access to crucial documents and information necessary for the case. This issue was not adequately addressed in the Order under challenge, prompting the appellant to seek a remand for proper consideration. Another significant issue pertains to the allegations against the Manager of the appellant for unauthorized actions. The appellant contends that the Manager was not authorized to hold a G Card on behalf of the appellant, leading to fraudulent activities. The appellant has even lodged an FIR against the Manager, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the need for a thorough investigation into the matter. Furthermore, the scrutiny of the internal mechanism of M/s. Wijeta Impex and Logistics for knowledge about shipping bills is crucial. The Departmental Representative highlights that the Order under challenge failed to address this aspect adequately. The internal mechanism's role in enabling the company to have knowledge about processed shipping bills and related activities is essential for a comprehensive adjudication of the appeal. Lastly, the judgment touches upon the reduction of penalty and the setting aside of the license revocation. While the Order under challenge provided some relief to the appellant by reducing the penalty and reinstating the license, the issues surrounding jurisdiction, unauthorized actions by the Manager, and internal mechanisms' scrutiny remain pivotal for a fair and just decision. Ultimately, the Tribunal deems it necessary to remand the matter back for a fresh decision on merits, specifically focusing on the jurisdictional aspect, as directed in the previous order of remand. As a result, the appeal is allowed by way of remand for further consideration and detailed analysis of the pertinent issues at hand.
|