TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....195;The assessees exported goods under claim for draw back. The assessee in CSTA No. 4/2007 received a sum of Rs. 3,54,621/- as draw back, whereas the assessee in CSTA No. 5/2007 received an amount of Rs. 4,58,708/- as draw back. DRI investigations revealed that the assessees had not received the export proceeds within the period allowed. Therefore, show cause notices were issued under Rule 16/Rule l6-A of the Customs and Central Excise Draw Back Rules, 1995, (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), for recovery of the draw back amounts. Penalties under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Act") were also proposed. The Commissioner of Customs passed the impugned orders for recovery of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wo appeals. 3.Learned counsel for the assessees contends, though the Notification conferred powers by virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act to appoint the Director of Revenue Intelligence as the Commissioner of Customs and authorises him to investigate the matter by issuing show cause notice, that Notification cannot be read as conferring power on him to adjudicate the dispute. Adjudication of dispute should be in accordance with Rule 16/Rule 16-A of the Rules, which confer powers only on the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or the Deputy Commissioner of Customs as the case may be, and therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs is one without Jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. In support of his contenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by express order by the Board, from discharging the functions of lower Customs Officers. Therefore, a reading of Section 4(1) read with Section 5(2) of the Act and the Notification issued confer not only the power to investigate and issue a show cause notice on the Director of Revenue Intelligence, bat also, confer powers to adjudicate the dispute regarding draw back and when a Commissioner adjudicates the dispute regarding draw back and passes the order-in original, against which an appeal lies to the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no merit in either of the contentions urged by the counsel for the assessees. 5.In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the short point that arises for our consideration is, "Whether ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of sub-Section (1), the Board may authorize a Chief Commissioner of Customs or a Commissioner of Customs or a Joint or Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs to appoint Officers of Customs below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs. By virtue of the powers so conferred under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 of the Act, the Board has issued the Notification No. 17/2002 No. Cus. (N.T.), dated 7th March 2002 which reads as under : "Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.) officers appointed as Customs Officers - Notification No. 19/90-Cus. (N.T.) superceded. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not disputed. What is disputed is the power of the said authority to adjudicate the dispute. Relying on the circular dated 15th February 1999, which is issued in pursuance of the Notification No. 19/90 conferring the similar power where it has been held, though they have been conferred the power to investigate and issue show cause notice, adjudication is to be done as per Rule 16-A by the jurisdictional Commissioners, Additional Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners of Customs. The said circular which is issued to explain the effect of the Notification No. 19/1990 has no legs to stand because the Notification No. 19/1990 is superceded by Notification No. 17/2002. Section 5 of the Act deals with powers of Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 4(1) of the Act. by virtue of Section 5(2) of the Act, has the jurisdiction to exercise the power of a subordinate or a lower authority and therefore, the power exercised by the Director of Revenue Intelligence is as stipulated under the Act and therefore, be cannot be found fault with and therefore, he has the jurisdiction to adjudicate and he has adjudicated the said dispute. 6. In so far as the contention that the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, adjudicating payment of duty draw back cannot be the subject matter of an appeal by the Tribunal is concerned, it is misconceived. The appeal provisions are contained in Section 129-A of the Act, which reads as under : 129A. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal : (1)....