Appellate Tribunal upholds Commissioner's remand order, citing Supreme Court precedent.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, dismissed the appeal challenging a remand order by the Commissioner (Appeals) post-amendment in Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that the appellate authority retains the jurisdiction to remand a case, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Umesh Dhaimode. The Tribunal emphasized the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions on all courts and authorities, rejecting arguments based on differing High Court opinions. The Tribunal did not delve into the case's merits, focusing solely on the jurisdictional issue and ultimately dismissing the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Jurisdiction of appellate authority to remand the case after an amendment in Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the appeal was against the order-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) which remanded the case back to the original authority for fresh adjudication. The appellant argued that post-amendment in Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, the appellate authority lacked the jurisdiction to remand the case. The appellant contended that the power to refer the matter back to the adjudicating authority was removed by the amendment effective from 11-5-2001. However, the Tribunal cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Umesh Dhaimode, emphasizing that the power of remand is implicit in annulling the lower authority's order. The Tribunal clarified that the Supreme Court's decision is binding on all courts and authorities under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, dismissing the argument that the remand order lacked jurisdiction due to the amendment.

The Tribunal addressed the submission made by the appellant regarding the difference of opinion among various High Courts on the issue of remand jurisdiction. The Tribunal firmly stated that the law pronounced by the Supreme Court prevails and is binding on all courts and authorities. Therefore, the contention that the remand order was without jurisdiction due to differing opinions among High Courts was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized the supremacy of the Supreme Court's decisions in such matters, reinforcing the binding nature of the law declared by the highest judicial authority in the country.

The judgment also briefly touched upon the submissions made on the merits of the case. However, since the appeal arose from a remand order instructing fresh adjudication on merit by the original authority, the Tribunal decided not to delve into the merits of the case further. This decision was based on the procedural aspect of the case, focusing on the specific issue of jurisdiction of the appellate authority to remand the case post-amendment in Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, bringing the matter to a conclusion with a clear decision on the jurisdictional aspect of the remand order.

---