2010 (7) TMI 307 - HC - Customs

CESTAT lacks jurisdiction for appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order under Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989.

The court held that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) lacked jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order of the ... Jurisdiction of appellate tribunal - statutory grant of right of appeal - inherent lack of jurisdiction - no estoppel against a statute - revision to Central Government under the RulesJurisdiction of appellate tribunal - statutory grant of right of appeal - inherent lack of jurisdiction - no estoppel against a statute - Whether CESTAT had jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) under the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that jurisdiction to hear appeals is a creature of statute and no general or inherent right of appeal exists; where the statute or rules do not provide for an appeal to a particular forum, that forum lacks jurisdiction. The Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989 confer adjudicatory power on the Assistant Collector of Customs (Rule 9), prescribe procedure (Rule 10), provide an appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Delhi (Rule 11) and reserve revisionary power to the Central Government (Rule 13). There is no provision in those Rules for an appeal to CESTAT. Consequently CESTAT had no jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's appeal merely because the respondent filed under the Customs Act or because of a covering letter's reference to Section 129A; a misstatement by the Commissioner (Appeals) or consent of parties cannot confer jurisdiction where the statute does not. The Court relied on settled principles that a defect in jurisdiction vitiates the order and that estoppel has no application against a statute. [Paras 7, 8, 10, 11]CESTAT lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules and the Tribunal's order allowing the appeal was set aside.Revision to Central Government under the Rules - no estoppel against a statute - Whether the respondent should be granted an opportunity to pursue statutory revision to the Central Government despite having filed an incompetent appeal to CESTAT. - HELD THAT: - Although the appeal before CESTAT was not maintainable, the Court found that the respondent was misled by a statement in the office correspondence of the Commissioner (Appeals). In view of that, and in the interest of justice, the Court directed that the respondent be permitted to prefer a revision to the Central Government under the Rules within two months and that such revision shall not be dismissed on grounds of limitation but shall be entertained on merits. The Court emphasised that misstatements cannot confer jurisdiction, yet relief by way of permitting revision was appropriate here to prevent prejudice to the respondent caused by the office misdirection. [Paras 12]Respondent granted two months to file revision to the Central Government; such revision shall be entertained on merits and not dismissed on the ground of limitation.Final Conclusion: The CESTAT's order allowing the appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction under the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989; the respondent is permitted to file a revision to the Central Government within two months which shall be entertained on merits notwithstanding limitation, and costs were imposed on the petitioner. Issues:Jurisdiction of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to hear an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Rule 11 of the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989.Analysis:The judgment delves into the issue of whether CESTAT had the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed by the respondent against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Rule 11 of the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989. The court examined the statutory framework established by the Finance Act, 1979, which introduced the Foreign Travel Tax (FTT) under Chapter-V. The charging Section 35 of the Act and penalties under Section 38 were scrutinized to understand the legal obligations of passengers and carriers regarding FTT. The Central Government was empowered to make Rules under Section 40 for the effective implementation of Chapter-5, leading to the formulation of the Inland Travel Tax Rules, 1989.The court highlighted the adjudication process for penalties in case of violations, assigning this authority to the Assistant Collector of Customs under Rule 9. The procedure for imposing penalties under Rule 10, including the right to appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Delhi, was outlined. Additionally, the revisionary powers of the Central Government under Rule 13 were discussed, emphasizing the hierarchical structure for addressing disputes related to FTT.In the specific case at hand, the respondent's appeal to CESTAT was challenged on grounds of jurisdiction. The court referenced legal precedents to emphasize that the right to appeal is a statutory provision and must be strictly adhered to. It was established that CESTAT lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as no provision existed under the relevant Rules for such appeals. The court cited cases to support the notion that a defect of jurisdiction renders any resulting order null and void in the eyes of the law, regardless of consent or misstatements.The judgment concluded that the appeal before CESTAT was not maintainable due to the absence of a statutory provision for such appeals. However, acknowledging the respondent's reliance on misleading information from the office of the Commissioner (Appeals), the court granted an opportunity for revision against the order, ensuring it would not be dismissed on grounds of limitation. To address the respondent's undue filing of the appeal, the court imposed costs on the petitioner. The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the limitations of jurisdiction in legal proceedings.