1992 (12) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the date of communication has been mentioned as 7-10-1992. The appeal has been presented in the registry on 26-11-1992. Simultaneously a stay application was presented and later on an affidavit was also presented on 30-11-1992. Notice of hearing was issued for the stay application and was listed for hearing. Ms. Kadambini, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri M.N. Dhar, JDR, for the respondent. 3. At the outset of the hearing Shri Dhar, Ld. DR raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order has been passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay. In view of the provisions of Finance Act, 1992 (No. 18 of 1992) Section 109(1)(8) "Collector of Customs", except for the purpose of Chapter XV, includes an Additi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the purpose of Chapter XV. Chapter XV relates to the filing of Appeals. This Finance Act, 1992 came into force on 14th May, 1992 and the order passed by the Additional Collector is dated 1-10-1992. Jurisdiction is conferred by the statute and if any mention is made in the order the jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the Tribunal, because the Additional Collector in the last para of the impugned order has mentioned that an appeal should be filed before the Cegat. We are of the view that observations made by the Additional Collector do not confer any jurisdiction on CEGAT. This Tribunal is a creature of the statute and for whatever orders passed by the Additional Collector with effect from 14th May, 1992, the appeal lies to the Collecto....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ree from doubt". Therefore, according to him, the impugned order may be set aside and the case be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the point of jurisdiction. I find there are three great hurdles in the way of the learned Counsel for the Department for succeeding in this contention: (i) Firstly, the petitioner is aggrieved only against that part of the finding in relation to the order of transfer to the Central Government. In his writ petition, I do not know how the Department could be granted relief. If such a relief is granted the petitioner is worse of and he is thrown into fire from frying pan. (ii) Secondly, the earlier part of the order, which I have extracted above, clearly shows that the Tribunal has come ....