Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded jurisdiction on DEPB benefit denial appeal, remanded for fresh decision.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHANDIGARH Versus ETCO TELECOM LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHANDIGARH Versus ETCO TELECOM LTD. - 2004 (176) E.L.T. 658 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:
Appeal jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar vs. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Delhi-I for DEPB benefit denial.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals arising from a common Order-in-Appeal, one filed by the Revenue and the other by M/s. ETCO Telecom Ltd., regarding the denial of DEPB benefit to the exporter due to a discrepancy in the description of goods. The issue revolved around the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar to decide appeals arising from the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Amritsar. The appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding the appeal when he was not empowered to do so. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar retained the power to decide appeals validly filed before him even after the amendment of Notification No. 16/2002 by Notification No. 78/2002.

Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal analyzed the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. It was noted that Section 3 of the Customs Act provides for the classes of officers of Customs, including the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Section 4 empowers the Central Government to appoint such officers. Initially, both the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi-1, and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Jalandhar had jurisdiction to hear appeals from officers subordinate to the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Amritsar. However, an amendment through Notification No. 78/2002 revoked the appointment of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Jalandhar for hearing such appeals. As a result, the Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar lacked the authority to decide appeals from officers subordinate to the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Amritsar after the amendment. Therefore, the impugned Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar was set aside, and the appeal by M/s. ETCO Telecom Ltd. was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Delhi-I for a fresh decision in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

In response to a request for expedited decision-making due to the DEPB benefit issue, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter within four weeks of receiving the Order. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly.