1992 (10) TMI 204 - AT - Customs

CEGAT Ruling: Jurisdiction in Baggage Cases Shifts to Central Government

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, in a case concerning jurisdiction in baggage cases post-amendment by Finance Act No. 21 of 1984, ruled that ... Jurisdiction of appellate tribunal in baggage cases - effect of amendment by Finance Act No. 21 of 1984 on appellate forum - return of papers where forum lacks jurisdiction - liberty to file revision before the Central Government - sympathetic consideration of limitation by revisionary authorityJurisdiction of appellate tribunal in baggage cases - effect of amendment by Finance Act No. 21 of 1984 on appellate forum - Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain appeals in baggage cases arising after the amendment by Finance Act No. 21 of 1984. - HELD THAT: - The amendment effected by Finance Act No. 21 of 1984 (in force from 11th May, 1984) transferred jurisdiction in baggage matters to the Central Government. The order-in-original (dated 19th July, 1984) and the Collector (Appeals) order (dated 30th October, 1984) concern unaccompanied baggage where the appellant returned to India on 10th June, 1984; consequently, the appeal before the Tribunal was filed in an incompetent forum. The Tribunal, following the reasoning in India Pistons Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras and Others , holds that where a forum lacks jurisdiction the proper course is to return the papers rather than attempt a transfer, since transfer would usurp the jurisdictional boundary established by the amendment. [Paras 2]The appeal cannot be entertained by the Tribunal and must be returned to the appellant for presentation before the revisionary authority.Return of papers where forum lacks jurisdiction - liberty to file revision before the Central Government - sympathetic consideration of limitation by revisionary authority - Papers are to be returned to the appellant and the appellant is at liberty to file a revision before the Central Government, with a request that limitation be considered sympathetically. - HELD THAT: - Applying the principle that an appeal filed in a wrong forum should be returned rather than transferred, the Tribunal directed the Registry to return the papers to the appellant so that he may file a revision application before the Central Government in accordance with law. Although the appeal was originally presented to the Tribunal within the period of limitation, the Tribunal cannot exercise jurisdiction; accordingly it recommended that the revisionary authority consider any plea as to limitation liberally and sympathetically when the appellant approaches the proper forum. [Paras 2]Registry to return the papers to the appellant; appellant may file a revision before the Central Government, which is requested to consider the limitation aspect sympathetically.Final Conclusion: Appeal disposed of by returning the papers to the appellant because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in baggage cases after the Finance Act No. 21 of 1984; appellant granted liberty to seek revision before the Central Government, with a request for liberal consideration of limitation. Issues: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in baggage cases post-amendment by Finance Act No. 21 of 1984The judgment before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in baggage cases following an amendment by Finance Act No. 21 of 1984. The appellant, Shri O.P. Gulati, had filed an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, which was received on 18th March, 1985. The respondent, represented by Shri M.N. Dhar, raised a preliminary objection stating that post the amendment, jurisdiction in baggage cases lies with the Central Government, necessitating a revision application. The appellant argued that he filed the appeal based on the order-in-appeal's preamble and requested the Tribunal to hear the appeal without placing him at a disadvantage due to the jurisdictional issue.The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances of the case, noting that Finance Act No. 21 of 1984 came into force on 11th May, 1984, while the relevant orders were dated before this date. Acknowledging that it was a baggage case and both parties agreed, the Tribunal concluded that post-amendment, jurisdiction did not lie with the Tribunal but with the revisionary authority, the Central Government. Citing a decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the Tribunal emphasized that once an appeal is found to be incompetent due to jurisdictional issues, the proper course is to return the papers to the appellant for filing a revision application before the appropriate authority. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Registry to return the papers to the appellant, allowing him to file a revision application before the Central Government if desired. The Tribunal highlighted that the appeal was presented within the limitation period and urged the revisionary authority to consider the limitation aspect sympathetically. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in accordance with these findings.