TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 88
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts, as found by the Tribunal, would be necessary. These are: The appellant, a body corporate, is engaged in the business of import of plywood, inlays, MDF laminated boards and veneer sheets etc. On 22nd May, 2000, one of the directors of the appellant, namely, Rakesh Chandna, was apprehended by the officers of the Customs department at Calcutta Airport. He was found in possession of US $45,000/- and Indian currency of Rs. 9,000/-, alongwith several incriminating documents, which fuelled further follow up action by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short "the DRI"). On 23rd May, 2000, in search operations, certain goods were seized from the premises of the appellant, as no documentary evidence was allegedly produced for their legal acquisition. The value of the goods so seized was determined at Rs. 24,26,234/-. 3. Statements of Rakesh Chandna and one Sanjeev Murgai, Manager of the appellant and also of some other persons were recorded, which revealed that the goods imported by the appellant viz. plywood, MDF boards and veneers etc. had been under-valued. Based on the incriminating documents recovered during the course of investigation, a show cause notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appearing for the appellant, while assailing the order passed by the High Court, strenuously urged that the High Court has committed a manifest error of law in dismissing the Statutory appeal in limine by a non-speaking order and therefore, the case deserves to be remitted back to the High Court for decision on merits of the questions proposed in the appeal. Learned counsel argued that all the questions, raised by the appellant in their appeal are substantial questions of law and therefore, the High Court ought to have examined each one of the questions so framed instead of dismissing the appeal by a cryptic order, by merely observing that the Tribunal has dealt with each and every argument urged on behalf of the appellant and they were in agreement with the reasons recorded by the Tribunal. Relying on the recent decision of this Court in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sayed Ali & Anr. (2011) 3 SCC 537, the learned counsel asserted that in any event the question extracted in para 5 (supra) is a substantial question of law, which should have been examined by the High Court. 7. Per contra, Mr. Bishwajit Bhattacharya, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, submitted that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the afore-extracted order of the High Court that it does not meet the requirement of stating reasons for coming to the conclusion that the order of the Tribunal did not give rise to any substantial question of law including the question extracted in para 5 above. Nevertheless, the next question for consideration is whether, having regard to the nature of the issues raised by the appellant in their appeal before the Tribunal, would it be worthwhile to remit the case back to the High Court to decide, in the first instance, question as to whether or not the questions proposed by the appellant in their application under Section 130 of the Act are substantial questions of law arising from the order of the Tribunal, before embarking upon their consideration on merits? 9. As stated above, the appellant had framed in their appeal before the High Court, as many as seven questions as substantial questions of law. It is manifest from a bare reading of the six questions, viz. (b) to (g), repeated in this appeal, that none of the questions can be said to be a substantial question of law, in as much as they do not proceed on the premise that the decision of the Tribunal on the issues raised t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on that none of the said questions seek to challenge the findings of the Tribunal or that of the Commissioner, on the issue raised in the questions, as perverse. It is not within the domain of the High Court, in appeal under Section 130 of the Act, to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the Tribunal, the final court of fact. In that view of the matter, we do not consider it expedient to remit the case to the High Court, in so far as these five questions are concerned. 12. However, the question which still survives for consideration is that the appellant having raised the question of jurisdiction of the DRI issuing the show cause notice as also the Commissioner of Customs passing the order of adjudication, in its appeal before the High Court and the High Court having failed to apply its mind as to whether or not it was a substantial question of law, the appellant is barred from raising the said issue before us in this appeal. 13. Having carefully gone through the appeal, in particular ground (f), wherein the jurisdiction of the DRI to issue a show cause notice under Section 28 of the Act as a "proper officer" has been specifically questioned, we ar....