9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) VERSUS FALCON INDIA [ 2018 (11) TMI 314 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where it was held that In these circumstances, that the order of the Commissioner was styled as an order-in-original or even that it mistakenly pointed to an appellate remedy under Section 129A of the Customs Act, was not in any manner conclusive or whether such appeal was maintainable. This Court is therefore of the opinion that the CESTAT's decision is sound and does not call for an interference. Appeal disposed off. - CUSAA 233/2019 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2022 - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU Appellant Through: Mr Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms Suhani Mathur and Mr Jatin K. Gaur, Advocates. Respondent Through: Mohd. Faraz Anees, Advocate. [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL) 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 03.05.2019 of the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, Tribunal ]. 2. Via the said order the Tribunal has rejected the appeal of the revenue on the ground that the appeal preferred under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lations, 2013 prohibits an appeal by the revenue department in case it were aggrieved of an order passed under the said Regulations? (ii) Whether the learned CESTAT did not err in holding that the appeal filed by the appellant before it under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 was not maintainable in view of Regulation 21 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013? 6. On the other hand, Mr Mohd. Faraz Anees, who appears on behalf of the respondent, has contended to the contrary. 6.1 According to Mr Anees, Section 129A of the Act has to be read with Regulation 21 of the 2013 Regulations. Mr Anees further says that the 2013 Regulations have been framed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes Customs [hereafter referred to as the Board ] in exercise of powers under Section 146(2)(g) of the Act. 6.2 It is Mr Anees s submission that appeal, if any, can be preferred to the Tribunal under Section 129A of the Act only in the following two situations: (i) Against an order of suspension (ii) Against an order revoking a licence. 6.3 Mr Anees thus submits that this is a case where the Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General) has set aside the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order- (a) a decision or order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority; xxx. xxx xxx 10. A close perusal of Section 146(2) would show that the Board is empowered to make regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of said section. 11. Furthermore, a perusal of clause (g) of sub-section (2) shows that, in particular, the regulations may provide for appeals, if any, against an order of suspension or revocation of licence and the period within which such appeals may be filed. 12. It is required to be noticed that sub-section (1) of Section 146 makes it clear the business of Custom Broker can be carried out only if the said person has a licence which is granted in accordance with the Regulations. 12.1 The language of sub-section (1) of Section 146 seems to suggest that although, a licence could be issued for one or more customs stations, the licence must indicate the customs station (s) for which it would operate. 13. Furthermore, the Board is, as noticed hereinabove, empowered to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court rejected this plea and inter alia, approved the dicta that the right of appeal can be restricted by statutory provisions. 15. We concur with the reasoning and logic articulated in the DHL Express case. Besides the aforementioned judgement, more closer to home, is the judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court in Falcon India case. It is a short judgment, which, in our view aligns with the view taken by us in the instant matter. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the judgment is extracted hereafter: 2. It is argued by the Revenue that the expression adjudicating authority would include a Commissioner and all orders of the Commissioner parting character of a decision based upon consideration of rival contentions and positions, would therefore be appealable. It was submitted that the Regulations were framed under the Customs Act and consequently every order made under the Customs Act or Ordinance framed under the Regulations would be appealable. xxx. xxx xxx 5. It is evident that appeals to the Tribunal are maintainable at the behest of persons who are aggrieved by any order of a Principal Commissioner or by Commissioner of Customs in he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
