9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter filed appeals before the Tribunal and also applications seeking interim reliefs and also waiver of pre-deposit on the penalty imposed. These applications were heard on several occasions starting from 1-12-1999. Shri Anil Balani, learned Counsel appearing for both applicants, raised the preliminary point of jurisdiction. He submitted that the authority who adjudicated the case lacked jurisdiction. 2.The relevant observation of the adjudicating Commissioner in Paragraph 13 of his order reads as under :- "The show cause notice is made answerable to Commissioner of Customs (JNPT). However, Chief Commissioner of Customs vide his order dated 10-12-98 allotted this case to me for adjudication." 3.As directed by us, the departmental repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He desired further time to secure that information from the Custom House. We do not accede to this request on two grounds; firstly that sufficient time had earlier been given for production of the relevant orders, and secondly that the note does not suggest any such possibility. 6.On perusal of the Chief Commissioner's note and annexure thereto, we find that the jurisdiction to adjudicate this case was not vested upon the Commissioner of Customs (Gen.), Mumbai. 7.Shri Choubey refers to Notification 27/97-Cus. (N.T.), dated 7-7-1997 issued by the government. Thereby in terms of entry at Sr. No. 1 the Commissioner of Customs at Mumbai has concurrent jurisdiction over JNPT. In fact the jurisdictions of the Commissioners at Sea Port, Airpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly. What is clear is that in terms of the show cause notice Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, was the designated authority. The list showing that the case was pending with the Commissioner of Customs (Adj.) was in error not capable of transferring jurisdiction. 10.Shri Balani was asked as to why in the face of this doubt the appellants had appeared before the Commissioner and had made their submissions. Shri Balani submitted that the jurisdiction could not be transferred by consent. This is a valid point. 11.Prima facie, therefore, we find that the Commissioner of Customs (Gen.) did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. Consequently, the order passed by him does not sustain. 12.The preliminary objection raised by Shri Bal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
