2012 (4) TMI 185 - HC - Customs

High Court dismisses Writ Petition, cites lack of jurisdiction. Parties advised to appeal to Supreme Court directly.

Commissioner of Customs (Sea) Versus CP. Aqua Culture (India) Pvt. Ltd.

The Court held that the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent Company was not maintainable due to the exclusion of the High Court's jurisdiction ... Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain appeal against order of Appellate Tribunal – gist of the decision pronounced without detailed order by CESTAT in open court – direction issued to Member(Technical) to draft detailed order who posted the matter for re-hearing – on writ petition filed by assessee, Court directed Tribunal to pass detailed order in line with pronouncement made in the open Court and gist of the decision recorded and signed on 04.6.2009 - Held that:- High Court has no power to entertain an appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal and if the parties are aggrieved, they should have approached the Supreme Court by way of appeal u/s 130-E of the Customs Act instead of resorting to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the jurisdiction of this Court has been ousted by Act 49 of 2005 from 28.12.2005. Therefore, earlier writ petition allowed is dismissed as not maintainable and the Writ Appeal stands allowed. Issues:1. Validity of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal on 04.6.2009.2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an appeal against the order of the Tribunal.3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent Company.Issue 1: The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal on 04.6.2009 was challenged by the Department, arguing that an oral order without a detailed written order is not valid in the eyes of the law. The Department contended that the Tribunal's decision to rehear the appeal was necessary as the gist of the order was not passed on 04.6.2009. On the other hand, the first respondent Company argued that once the operative portion of the decision is pronounced in open court and signed by the Members, the appeal attains finality, and the Tribunal cannot modify or alter the decision. The Court examined Rule 26 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which mandates that every order must be in writing and signed by the Members. The Court found that the order was signed on 04.6.2009, making it the last date of hearing, and concluded that the appeal was not filed in accordance with the provisions of the Act or Rules.Issue 2: The Court delved into the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an appeal against the order of the Tribunal. The unamended Section 130 of the Customs Act allowed appeals to the High Court, but after the enactment of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, Section 130 was omitted, excluding the jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court analyzed the maintainability of the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent Company under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While acknowledging the High Court's inherent powers, the Court held that the jurisdiction of the High Court was excluded post the enactment of Act 49 of 2005, and thus, the High Court could not entertain appeals against the Tribunal's orders.Issue 3: The Court scrutinized the maintainability of the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent Company. Despite arguments on the High Court's unlimited jurisdiction, the Court emphasized that the statutory provisions post the enactment of Act 49 of 2005 ousted the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the Tribunal's orders. The Court cited a Circular and a document emphasizing that once the Tribunal disposes of a matter, it becomes functus officio and cannot recall the final order. Consequently, the Court held that the Writ Petition should not have been entertained, setting it aside as not maintainable and allowing the Writ Appeal.In conclusion, the Court found that the Writ Petition was not maintainable due to the exclusion of the High Court's jurisdiction post the enactment of Act 49 of 2005 and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that parties should have approached the Supreme Court for appeal under Section 130-E of the Customs Act instead of invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.