Customs Act proceedings deemed unlawful due to rescission of notification No. 133/87. Lack of jurisdiction cited in successful appeal.

The Court held that the proceedings against the appellant under the Customs Act were unlawful as the liability could not be imposed after the rescission of notification No. 133/87. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order, based on the lack of jurisdiction due to the rescission. Other arguments raised were not addressed as the main issue of legality of proceedings was decisive.

---

---

Issues:
1. Legality of proceedings initiated against the appellant under Customs Act.
2. Interpretation of notification No. 133/87 and its rescission by notification No. 47/96.
3. Application of Section 159A of the Customs Act 1962.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Legality of proceedings initiated against the appellant under Customs Act
The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, where the penalty and fine were reduced but the appeal was rejected. The appellant, who purchased two deep sea fishing trawlers, was issued a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act for confiscation and penalty due to non-compliance with notification No. 133/87. The appellant contended that the proceedings were illegal due to the rescission of the notification.

Issue 2: Interpretation of notification No. 133/87 and its rescission by notification No. 47/96
The appellant argued that the liability under notification No. 133/87 was not applicable as it was rescinded by notification No. 47/96 before the appellant acquired the trawlers. The respondent, however, relied on Section 159A of the Customs Act, stating that the liability under the rescinded notification still existed. The Court examined the provisions of notification No. 133/87 and concluded that the liability could not have been acquired after the rescission of the notification.

Issue 3: Application of Section 159A of the Customs Act 1962
The Court analyzed Section 159A, which deals with the effect of amendments, repeal, or rescission of notifications. It was observed that the liability under a rescinded notification could only be acquired if the event triggering the liability occurred before the rescission. As the liability could only arise after the rescission of notification No. 133/87, Section 159A did not save the proceedings initiated against the appellant. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Court found that the proceedings initiated against the appellant were without jurisdiction due to the rescission of notification No. 133/87 before the liability could be acquired. The appeal was allowed based on this finding, and other contentions raised by the appellant were not addressed in light of the decision on the legality of the proceedings.

---