9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1962 [ the Act ], the remedy of impugning the order was by way of a Revision to the Central Government and an appeal to the Tribunal was not maintainable. Said position is not disputed by learned counsel for respondent who concedes that in terms of Section 129(DD) of the Act, the remedy was only by way of a Revision and not by way of Appeal to the Tribunal. Learned counsel, however, submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r CBIC with Mr. Ritwik Saha, Mr. Raghav Bakshi, Mr. Anand Pandey, Mr. Harsh Bhatia and Ms. Charu Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent: Dr. Seema Jain, Mr. Ajay K. Jain, Mr. Dushyant K Mahant and Mr. Vimlesh Kumar, Advocates. JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) 1. The subject appeal impugns order dated 25.05.2023, passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue had not objected to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal. 4. In M/S Sans Frontiers (supra), the Division Bench held that an order passed by a Court which did not have the subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue would be a nullity. No consent, waiver or acquiescence could confer jurisdiction upon a Court, which jurisdiction was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.05.2023 is set aside. An opportunity is granted to the respondent to prefer a Revision under Section 129(DD) of the Act against the Order-in-Appeal dated 14.10.2022, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) within a period of two months from today. 7. In case such Revision is filed by the respondent within two months, the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
