TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT MUMBAI Overturns Order due to Lack of Jurisdiction</h1> <h3>AMBA EXPO FAB Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI set aside the impugned order in an appeal where the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority was challenged. The ... Jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter - held that:- impugned show cause notice was assigned to the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva for adjudication - impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva is without jurisdiction - vide F.No. S/V-30/Misc-300/2005-M-II dated 27.08.2009 the appointment of Shri K.K.Srivastava, Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) has been withdrawn - prayer made by the learned AR cannot be accepted as there is no adjudicating authority appointed to adjudicate the impugned show cause notice - impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed. Issues: Jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority, legality of the impugned order, validity of the show cause notice conversion, jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Import), withdrawal of the adjudicating authority's appointment.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the appellants appealed against an impugned order and applied for a stay of the demand. The tribunal decided to dispose of the appeals and stay applications together. The appellant's counsel argued that the Commissioner who adjudicated the show cause notice lacked jurisdiction, thus the impugned order should be set aside. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel suggested remanding the matter back for fresh adjudication. The tribunal noted that the show cause notice was converted into another file assigned to a specific Commissioner for adjudication. However, the impugned order was passed by a different Commissioner who claimed jurisdiction based on a notification. Upon examining the notification, the tribunal found no assignment of the show cause notice to the Commissioner who passed the impugned order, concluding that the order was without jurisdiction. Additionally, the tribunal observed that the appointment of the adjudicating authority had been withdrawn, rendering the respondent's prayer for remand invalid. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed, with the appeals and stay applications disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
