TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, under the transitional scheme in Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the revisional authority had jurisdiction to deal with the pending revision in a case of absolute confiscation. (ii) Whether the impugned order was vitiated for want of personal hearing, contrary to natural justice.
Issue (i): Whether, under the transitional scheme in Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the revisional authority had jurisdiction to deal with the pending revision in a case of absolute confiscation.
Analysis: The transitional provision was read as continuing certain pending matters before the Central Government where the order related to confiscation without an option to redeem, but the ceiling of ten thousand rupees was held to apply independently to each of the clauses in the proviso. The Court held that clause (b) could not be rendered redundant, and the structure and punctuation of the proviso supported the view that the monetary ceiling was not confined to clause (c) alone. On that construction, the Government of India lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the revision on the facts of the case.
Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection succeeded; the impugned revisional order was without jurisdiction.
Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order was vitiated for want of personal hearing, contrary to natural justice.
Analysis: The order was also attacked on the ground that the petitioner was not given a personal hearing before the revision was dismissed. The absence of such hearing was treated as a breach of natural justice affecting the validity of the order.
Conclusion: The order was vitiated for violation of natural justice.
Final Conclusion: The revisional order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: In construing a transitional customs provision, the qualifying monetary ceiling in the proviso applies independently to each relevant clause, and an order passed without jurisdiction and without affording a personal hearing cannot stand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
