9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Cargo Export v. Sans Frontiers [ 2023 (12) TMI 695 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that Appeal to CESTAT against order of Commissioner (Appeals) with respect to recovery of duty Drawback on exported goods is not maintainable as per Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962. Also affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court [ 2024 (5) TMI 1488 - SC ORDER] . We also find that the same view has also been held in Arihant Overseas [ 2024 (5) TMI 212 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein as held that in terms of Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, the remedy against such orders is by way of a Revision to Central Government. We observe that the appellant has filed these appeals before the wrong Forum and hence these appeals are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of Physical Infrastructure and Transport, Government of Nepal for the supply of Modular Steel Bridges under Road Sector Development Project. In terms of Para 12.1 of the said agreement read with schedule of requirement and price schedule, the Appellant was required to supply 30 Modular Steel Bridges of which 27 bridges would be of Indian origin and 3 bridges of France origin. 3. In order to make supply to the Government of Nepal as per the terms of the contract, the Appellant had exported two Modular bridges of France origin of specification 50m span, 7.35m wide, AASHTO P7 Truck Loading Capacity, along with one set extra bearing with all accessories to the Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Transport, Government of Nepal vide Shippin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue submitted that the issue involved in these appeals are related to Drawback claims. As per Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the appeals related to drawback matters. Accordingly, he submitted that the appeals are not maintainable. He further submitted that the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of clause (a) and (aa) of Notification No. 208- Cus dated 01.10.1977. Accordingly, he submitted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the drawback claim filed by the appellant. 5. Regarding maintainability of the appeals, the appellant fairly conceded that this Tribunal is not empowered to deal with issues related to drawba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of any order referred to in clause (b) if such order relates to, (a) any goods imported or exported as baggage; (b) any goods loaded in a conveyance for importation into India, but which are not unloaded at their place of destination in India, or so much of the quantity of such goods as has not been unloaded at any such destination if goods unloaded at such destination are short of the quantity required to be unloaded at that destination; (c) payment of drawback as provided in Chapter X, and the rules made thereunder: 7.2. A perusal of proviso (c) to Section 129A reproduced above clearly indicate that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with appeals related to drawback matters. 8. We observe that this issue has been dealt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot have the jurisdiction to pass such an order, is non est. The invalidity of such orders can be set up whenever they are sought to be enforced. 62. It is well-settled that the order passed by a Court, which does not have the subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue, would be a nullity. No consent, waiver or acquiescence can confer jurisdiction upon a Court, which is otherwise barred by the statute. The order, passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, is non est and its invalidity can be set up at any stage and in any proceedings. 64. Therefore, even if it is to be assumed that the Revenue had consented to the learned CESTAT hearing the appeal, the defect of lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured. 8.1. We observe that the above dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statute. She submits that an opportunity be granted to the respondent to now file a Revision in terms of Section 129 (DD) of the Act before the Central Government. 8.3. In view of the above discussion and by following the decisions cited supra, we hold that the appeals filed by the appellant against the impugned orders are not maintainable as per Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. We observe that the appellant has filed these appeals before the wrong Forum and hence these appeals are not maintainable before this Tribunal. As it is a genuine mistake, we observe that the appellant should not be penalised for filing appeal before the wrong forum. Accordingly, we grant leave to the appellant to file the Revision Applications against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
