Petitions disposed after finding Section 134 Finance Act 2023 unnotified under Section 1(2)(b); Sections 9,9A,9C amendments not in force

HC disposed petitions after noting CESTAT held that Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 was not notified under Section 1(2)(b), so amendments to Sections 9, 9A and 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 have not come into force and the appeal is maintainable before CESTAT. Petitioners informed they would not press the petitions in view of that CESTAT order but were granted liberty to revive if circumstances change. Respondent did not contest the notification position.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether amendments effected by Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 to Sections 9, 9A and 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 are ultra vires (challenged on substantive grounds) - specifically, whether the amendments impermissibly curtail substantive rights to challenge notifications.

2. Whether Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 has come into force such that the amended text of Sections 9, 9A and 9C is operative, having regard to the requirement of notification under Section 1(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2023.

3. Consequential issue: whether appeals under Section 9C, as amended, are maintainable before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) or whether the pre-amendment regime continues to govern pending/impugned actions.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Ultra Vires Challenge to Amendments

Legal framework: Legislative amendments to statutory appeals and determination/review provisions are examined under constitutional limits on law-making; challenges to substantive curtailment of rights require consideration of the text, scope and effect of amendments to Sections 9, 9A and 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as inserted by Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023.

Precedent Treatment: The Court did not decide the substantive constitutional challenge; no Supreme Court authority was applied or overruled by the Court on the ultra vires contention in these proceedings. The CESTAT decision referenced pertains to the question of whether Section 134 is in force, not to the merits of ultra vires contentions.

Interpretation and reasoning: The petitions raised that the amendments would remove or limit the substantive right to challenge notifications; however, the Court did not adjudicate these merits because the operative question of enforceability depended on whether Section 134 had been brought into force by notification under Section 1(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2023.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The Court did not pronounce on the ultra vires argument substantively; any observations on this issue are obiter in the sense that the Court expressly refrained from examining the merits.

Conclusion: The Court did not determine whether the amendments are ultra vires; the challenge on substantive grounds remains undecided and reserved for determination in an appropriate case if the statutory position changes.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Whether Section 134 Has Been Notified into Force

Legal framework: A statutory provision in a Finance Act comes into force on the date provided in the Act or on such date as is notified under the Act's commencement provisions (here, reference to Section 1(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2023). The legal effect of an amendment depends on proper commencement/notification.

Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on the CESTAT's contemporaneous determination that Section 134 had not been brought into force by the executive notification contemplated under Section 1(2)(b), and the parties did not contest that factual-legal position before the Court. The Court did not cite or overrule authority contrary to CESTAT on commencement.

Interpretation and reasoning: The determinative factual-legal finding was that the Central Government had not issued the notification required to bring Section 134 into effect. Given that lack of notification, the amended provisions could not operate; therefore, the pre-amendment statutory text continued to govern the rights and remedies under the Customs Tariff Act.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The Court's conclusion that Section 134 has not come into force (for the facts before it) is a dispositive interlocutory finding (binding for the decision disposing the petitions as infructuous) and therefore forms the operative ratio for disposition of these petitions; it is not a broad legal pronouncement on commencement doctrine beyond application to the present facts.

Conclusion: Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 had not been notified into force under Section 1(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2023 at the relevant time; consequently, the amendments to Sections 9, 9A and 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 have not come into effect for the matters before the Court.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 3: Maintainability of Appeals and Consequential Relief

Legal framework: Jurisdiction and maintainability of appeals under Section 9C are determined by the statutory text in force at the time of appeal; where an amendment is not in force, pre-amendment appellate remedies and routes remain available.

Precedent Treatment: CESTAT's order held that, in the absence of a notification bringing Section 134 into force, appeals against the designated authority's findings and consequential notifications remained maintainable before the Tribunal under the unamended Section 9C. The Court accepted that finding and the factual posture before it was not contested by respondents.

Interpretation and reasoning: Because Section 134 was not in force, the Court concluded that the Petitioners' grievance arising from the pre-amendment regime could not be adjudicated as a live controversy insofar as the legislative changes purportedly impinging on substantive rights had not taken effect. The CESTAT finding on maintainability therefore resolved the immediate dispute: appeals under the unamended provisions were maintainable.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The decision that appeals under Section 9C (pre-amendment) remain maintainable, as applied to the facts before the Court, is part of the Court's operative conclusion disposing of the petitions as infructuous; it is not a decision resolving the merits of any challenge to amended jurisdictional architecture.

Conclusion: Appeals under Section 9C, as applicable on the facts before the Court, remain maintainable under the unamended provisions; the petitions challenging the amendments were disposed of as infructuous because the amendments were not in force.

ADDITIONAL COURT FINDINGS AND DIRECTIONS (INTERRELATED)

1. The Petitioners elected not to press the petitions in view of the CESTAT finding that Section 134 had not been notified; the respondents did not contest that position.

2. The petitions were disposed of as infructuous without adjudication on the merits; the Court expressly refrained from examining substantive challenges to the amendments and granted liberty to revive the petitions if the notification position changes.

3. The Court's disposition is procedural and contingent on the factual-legal state of commencement; any future adjudication on the merits is reserved for an appropriate case should Section 134 be notified or otherwise come into force.

---