Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Terna Shetkari Ssk Ltd vs Commissioner Of Cen.Excise, ... on 13 February, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO.1
APPEAL NO.E/18/03 & E/2604/03
(Arising out of Order-in- Original/Appeal No. 37/CEX/2002 dtd. 30.10.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad )
For approval and signature:
Honble Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
And
Honble K.K.Agarwal, Member(Technical)
============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
============================================================= M/s. Terna Shetkari SSK Ltd. Commissioner of Cen.Excise, Aurangabad :
Appellant VS Commissioner of Cen.Excise, Aurangabad M/s. Terna Shetkari SSK Ltd. Respondent Appearance Shri A.B. Kolte, Advocate for Appellant Shri Ajay Saxena, Authorized Representative (DR) CORAM:
Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President And Mr.K.K.Agarwal, Member(Technical) Date of decision 13/02/08 ORDER NO.
Per : Jyoti Balasundaram These two appeals arise out of the order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad confirming a duty demand of Rs. 22,90,750/- against M/s. Regal Implex, Kandivli, Mumbai and imposing penalty of equal amount upon them and imposing penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on M/s. Terna Shetkari SSK Ltd . While M/s. Terna Shetkari SSK Ltd. is in appeal against the imposition of penalty, the Revenues appeal is on the ground that the Commissioner of Cen.Excise & Customs, Aurangabad has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order for the reason that the B-I bond was executed by the Merchant exporter with the Maritime Commissioner falling within the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai.I.
2. We have heard both sides. We agree with the Revenue that since B-1 bond was executed by the Merchant Exporter with the Maritime Commissioner, Mumbai falling with the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Cen.Excise, Mumbai.1, the Commissioner of Cen.Excise, Auragabad has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the Revenue. As a result of setting aside the impugned order, the penalty imposed on M/s. Terna Shetkari SSK Ltd. is also set aside. In the result both the appeals are allowed.
K.K.Agarwal Member(Technical) Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram Vice President pv 2