Appeals allowed due to jurisdictional boundaries; emphasize precedent and Customs Act, 1962, Section 112(b).

The appeals were allowed as the appellants were found to fall under the jurisdiction of different Commissionerates in Surat and Rajkot, not under the Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad. Citing a previous case and a Larger Bench decision, the judge emphasized the lack of jurisdiction as the basis for setting aside the impugned orders under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. This case underscores the importance of jurisdictional boundaries and the application of precedents in determining the validity of orders issued by authorities.

---

---

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two appeals challenging the Order-in-Appeal that imposed a penalty on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The advocate for the appellant argued that the Order-in-Original was passed against 6 assessees, and the main notice's appeal had been allowed by the Tribunal due to the lack of jurisdiction of the office of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad. The advocate contended that the current appellants, situated in Surat and Rajkot, were also beyond the jurisdiction of the said office.

The Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. After considering the submissions and examining the record, the judge noted that the current appellants fell under the jurisdiction of different Commissionerates in Surat and Rajkot. The judge also observed that in a previous case involving M/s. Farmsons Fabrics (P) Ltd., the Tribunal had set aside an order on jurisdiction grounds, citing a Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. Godrej Soap Ltd. The judge, in line with the previous order and the Larger Bench decision, concluded that since the current appellant was not under the jurisdiction of the Ahmedabad Commissionerate, the impugned orders were to be set aside on the basis of jurisdictional constraints.

In accordance with the above analysis and the precedent set by the previous orders, the judge allowed the appeals, emphasizing the lack of jurisdiction as the key factor in setting aside the impugned orders. The judgment highlights the significance of jurisdictional boundaries in legal proceedings and the application of relevant precedents to determine the validity of orders issued by authorities.

---