TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (3) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....superseded. (C) For that, seizure in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not effected by the proper officer and hence illegal. (D) For that, the goods illegally seized, should in the circumstances, have been returned unconditionally to the applicant. (E) For that, the applicant could not have been required to furnish any security for the provisional release of goods seized illegally and without jurisdiction. (F) For that, the respondent could not have purported to confiscate the goods in absentia or impose a fine in lieu thereof or proceed to recover the fine so imposed or duty in respect of the goods from out of the security required to be furnished illegally. It is contended by the appellants that the goods seized were admittedly manufactured in the appellants' factory in Bhubaneswar within the jurisdiction of the respondents in the State of Orissa. However, the goods were seized by the officers of P & I Unit of the Dy. Collector, Vishakhapatnam while in transit on National Highway No. 5, near Srikakulam in the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that the seized goods were taken to Vishakhapatnam in A.P. after interrogation of the driver of the truck ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d without jurisdiction. It is also stated that by inadvertence grounds reflecting the aforesaid issues had not been formulated in the Memorandum of grounds of appeal and therefore, the appellants crave the indulgence of the Bench to grant leave to amend their EA-3 form and to include the grounds which are stated above. 2. We have heard Shri M.G.S. Murthy, learned advocate for the appellants and Shri M.S. Arora, learned DR for the Revenue. The learned advocate has submitted that the grounds the appellants are making out as additional grounds, are all legal ones and they are required to be allowed. He has contended that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any time and that the same having been raised at this stage, is no ground to reject the same. The learned advocate also relied on the following rulings - Union of India v. Tara Chand Gupta & Bros. [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1456 (SC)] Chandra Bhushan Khanna v. Brij Nandan Singh & Others (A.I.R. 1978 Allahabad 459) Mohan Lal & Others v. The Charge Officer, Purnia & Others (A.I.R. 1974 Patna 275 Krishna Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [1988 (36) E.L.T. 633] Dr. S.K. Jhunjhunwala v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi [1985....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the decree passed by the court below is a nullity and its validity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings as laid down by the Supreme Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (A.I.R. 1954 SC 340)" 6. In the case of Union of India v. Tara Chand Gupta (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the question of exercise of jurisdiction by Civil Court in Excise and Customs matters and held that civil suit will lie if the Collector acts in excess of jurisdiction. This ruling does not assist us to consider the points raised in this application regarding admissibility of additional grounds. 7. In the case of Dr. Jhunjhunwala v. Collector of Customs (supra), the Single Member of ERB was considering the question of exercise of jurisdiction by an authority. However, this ruling does not deal with the question of raising additional grounds at the appellate stage. 8. In the case of Krishna Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (supra), the Single Member of NRB was considering the question of exercise of jurisdiction by Regional Bench of a matter pertaining to Special Bench....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the appellants involves a question on jurisdiction of the authorities to initiate action for violation of provisions of Section 113(1) of the Customs Act. The Bench has held that it was obligatory on the part of the adjudicating authority to decide its jurisdictional question before ordering confiscation under Section 113(1). The Bench has further held that being a jurisdictional question, it could be raised even at the stage of the appeal and the Bench allowed to raise this question as the same had been raised even at the adjudication stage. 15. In the case of Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Customs as reported in [1990 (50) E.L.T. 561], the Bench relying on the Supreme Court ruling in the case of C.I.T. v. Gangappa Cables [1979 (116) I.T.R. 778], has held that additional grounds of appeal which are of a legal nature, can be allowed. 16. In the case of Mohan Samtani v. Collector of Customs [1990 (50) E.L.T. 592] the Bench relying on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Singh & Others v. Chaman Paswan & Others (1954 SCA P. 725) and as in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahalaxmi Textile Mills (I.T.R. 67 Vol. LXVI ....