2009 (9) TMI 472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....398-408/2009-WZB/C-II/CSTB Application Nos. C/S/1412, 952, 1009-1010, 991, 1007, 1005, 954, 986, 989 and 979/2008 in Appeal Nos. C/747, 634, 678-679, 663, 676, 674, 636, 658, 661 and 651/2008 S/Shri Mithil Dave, Advocate, Avinash Singh Gautam, C.A., H.R. Shetty, D.H. Nadkarni and Jagmohan Bansal, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri B.K. Singh, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: P.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssued under sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962. Under Notification No. 37/03 ibid, the CBEC had, under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act, appointed the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai alongwith three other Commissioners, as Commissioners of Customs, each having jurisdiction over the whole of India for the purposes of adjudicating cases as assigned to them by the Boa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ional question arises at the outset. The question is which of the two Commissioners had jurisdiction for adjudicating the show-cause notice. Both sides have referred to the notifications and orders of the Board as well as to the provisions of Section 4 of the Customs Act. The Jt. CDR has also referred to Shri Rajesh Totla v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2001 (138) E.L.T. 398 (Tri.-Mumbai), wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-Cus. (N.T.). The same function was assigned by the Board to two different Commissioners at different points of time, to the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai on 2-8-05 and to the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva on 28-12-05. In our considered view, the assignment dated 28-12-05, impliedly superseded the earlier assignment dated 2-8-05. In other words, on and after 28-12-....