Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Cc, New Delhi on 20 February, 2008
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1 Customs Appeal No. 29 of 2008 with Customs Misc. Application No. 63 of 2008 & Customs Stay Application No. 131 of 2008 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 04/2008 dated 09.01.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi). DATE OF HEARING : 20.02.2008 DATE OF DECISION : 20.02.2008 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. JHA, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. M. VEERAIYAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 ?. 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not ? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order ? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities? M/s Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd . . Appellants (Rep. by Sh. TPS Kang, Adv.) VERSUS CC, New Delhi . Respondent
(Rep by Sh. B.K. Singh, DR) CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. JHA, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. M. VEERAIYAN, MEMBER (T) ORDER NO.________________________________ PER JUSTICE S.N. JHA :
This Appeal has come up for hearing along with the applications which have been filed for early hearing of the appeal and for stay. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned DR for some time, we are of the view that the appeal itself is not maintainable before this Tribunal and, therefore, it is not necessary to pass separate orders on the aforesaid applications.
2. This appeal arises from an order of the Commissioner of Customs dated 09.01.2008, on application of the appellant under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962. The said Section which was inserted by an amendment in 2006 (w.e.f. 14th July, 2006) provides for provisional release of goods etc. seized under Section 110, pending order of the adjudicating officer. The question is whether the appeal against such order is maintainable under Section 129-A before this Tribunal under the Customs Act. Section 129-A provides for appeal inter alia against a decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority. The order envisaged in Section 110-A cannot be treated to be an order in the nature of adjudication. As a matter of fact, as mentioned above, order in regard to the provisional release of goods etc. is to be passed pending the order of the adjudicating officer which clearly shows that the order of release or non-release cannot be deemed to be an order in the nature of adjudication.
3. As a matter of fact, we are not sure whether in the instant case the adjudication is to be made by Commissioner himself or by any subordinate officer. It may also be relevant to mention here that the said application before the Commissioner for release of the goods was filed in the light of the order of the Delhi High Court dated 29.11.2007 in Writ Petition (C) No. 3813/2007. The appellant contends that the direction of the High Court was not carried out by the Commissioner, if that is so, it is open to the appellant to make grievance to that effect in the High Court. In the above premises, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on the 20th day of February, 2008) (JUSTICE S.N. JHA) (PRESIDENT) (M. VEERAIYAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Golay