TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 676
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Evidence Act the report of the Naval Authorities is final and presumed to be true even through none of the Naval Authorities has been examined and alleged corresponding letters were not proved. 3. Whether the Tribunal is right in stating that the appellant has not discharged his burden of proof by not leading any rebuttal evidence while the appellant had produced the original of the Shipping bills. 4. Whether the Tribunal is right in not accepting the shipping bills which has been duly signed by the Master of the vessel with due endorsement, that the contents were received on Board, especially when the Master of the vessel is Competent Authority for certifying the receipt of the goods. 5. Whether Tribunal was right in accepting the letter dated 28.02.1996 of the Flag Officer, Commander-in-Chief, when nobody was examined to prove such a letter and the appellant had not been given an opportunity to cross examine either the author of the letter, or person who is in charge of the Section, thereby, when the letter is not proved as per Evidence Act, whether the Tribunal is right in accepting the same. 6. Whether the Tribunal is right in concluding that the signature of the Naval Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant for non-supply when the goods are kept in the Bond House with double look system and one key is with the Customs Authorities and therefore, it was impossible for the appellant to remove the goods without the concurrence and usage of other key by the Customs Authority especially when no collusion was alleged in the show cause notice. 3.The appellant is a licensed Private Bonded Ware House with licences bearing Nos.1/85 and 8/94, issued under section 58 of the Customs Act, 1964 [the Act]. The licences enable them to store bonded goods like liquor, cigarettes, perfumes, etc. for supply as Shipstores to various vessels. On 08.02.1996, the Andhra Pradesh State Excise Department registered a case against the appellant for alleged diversion of bonded goods including liquor. The appellant was issued notices dated 26.3.1996 and 04.04.1996, both for shortages and excesses in terms of section 72(1)(d) of the Act. The appellant submitted their reply dated 30.03.1996, for the notice dated 26.03.1996, stating that there was no shortage of goods, they had applied for release of goods described in the notice to supply the same to Naval ships, vide Shipping Bills dated 07.02.1996, goods were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 112 of the Act, should not be imposed on them to having been abetted the act of diversion of bonded stores. The appellant submitted their reply dated 11.08.1998, denying their complicity in the matter and requested for a personal hearing to be given to them and seeking permission to engage an Advocate. The Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam, adjudicated show cause notice and by order dated 31.03.1999, confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.46,60,272/-, under Section 28 of the Act read with proviso thereunder along with interest thereon under Section 28AB of the Act, ordered confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of Rs.5,000/-. Apart from imposing penalty equivalent to that of duty under Section 114A on the appellant and Rs.10,00,000/- penalty on the Manager and Rs.20,00,000/- on the Sales Representative. Apart from penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on M/s.Abid Stores, who bought the goods 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs Visakhapatnam, the appellant preferred appeal before the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) along with appeal, the appellant filed an application for stay of the order, dated 31.03.1998....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... their burden of proof. Accordingly, the appellant was held liable to pay duty of custom on the ship stores and the available goods were liable for confiscation and imposed redemption fine of Rs.21,000/-. The penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114A of the Act was vacated on the ground that the said provision is not in force during the period when the fraud was committed. The penalty on the employees was reduced to Rs.5,00,000/- each, the penalty imposed on the purchaser under Section 112 was vacated. Challenging the said order dated 19.12.2005, this appeal has been preferred. 6. When this appeal was set down for hearing before this Bench, Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent/Revenue raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the appeal before this Court. It was contended that the appellant was a licensed bonded warehouse in Visakhapatnam and the licences having been granted by the Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam; the fraud committed by the appellant was deducted at Visakhapatnam; the show cause notice was issued by the customs authorities at Visakhapatnam and the show cause notice was adjudicated and order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt to entertain this appeal under Section 130 of the Act. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjos Jewellers vs. Syndicate Bank reported in 2007 (5) CTC 305, and submitted that in the said case, the writ petition was filed challenging an order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal situated within the territorial limit of this Court while the Original Tribunal was situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh. While considering "cause of action" the Full Bench held that the writ petition before this Court is maintainable. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of R.Raman vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2011) 5 MLJ 849, and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canon Steels P., Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion)., reported in 2007 (218) E.L.T., 161 (S.C.,). Therefore, it is the contention of the appellant that though the Original Authority, the first Appellate Authority were situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the order passed by the Tribunal would be a relevant factor for the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red by the Tribunal shall be binding on all the authorities exercising its jurisdiction under the said Tribunal. In the said case, the Delhi Tribunal exercised jurisdiction over all the three States and in all the three States there are High Courts. It was further pointed out that in the event, aggrieved person is treated to be a dominus litus, as a result whereof, he elects to file the appeal before one or the other High Court, the decision of the High Court shall be binding only on the authorities which are within its jurisdiction and it will only be of persuasive value on the authorities functioning under a different jurisdiction. It was held that if the binding authority of a High Court does not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction and the decision of one High Court would not be a binding precedent for other High Courts or Courts or Tribunals outside its territorial jurisdiction, some sort of judicial anarchy shall come into play, pointing out that an assessee, affected by an order of assessment made at Bombay, may invoke the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it and which might suit him and would be able to successfully eva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....situated in the State where the first court is located should be considered to be the appropriate Appellate Authority. CPC did not contemplate such a situation. Further, it was pointed out that the submission of the appellant is inconsistent and contradictory. The doctrine of dominus litis or doctrine of situs of the appellate Tribunal do not go together. Dominus litis indicates that the suitor has more than one option, whereas the situs of an appellate Tribunal refers to only one High Court wherein the appeal can be preferred. Further, the Apex Court held that the situs of a Tribunal may vary from time to time and it could be Delhi or some other place. Whether its jurisdiction would be extending to three States or more or less would depend upon the executive order which may be issued. Determination of the jurisdiction of a High Court on the touchstone of Sections 35G and 35H of the Act should be considered only on the basis of statutory provisions and not anything else. While defining the High Court in terms of Section 36(b) of the Act, Parliament never contemplated to have a situation of this nature and if the cause of action doctrine is given effect to, invariably more than one ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Punjab & Haryana High Court was justified in its view as the Original adjudication order and the appellate order were not issued by any authority within its territorial jurisdiction, but considering that no person should be left without the remedy though the case was withdrawn by the asessee, direct the restoration of the said case as undisputably, the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the Delhi High Court was directed to deal the matter on merits. Therefore, the decision in the case of the Canon Steels P., Ltd., (supra), does not in any manner advance the case of the appellant and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Industries, referred supra, would be squarely applicable to the facts of this case. 16. The learned counsel by placing reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjos Jewellers vs. Syndicate Bank, (supra), and the decision of this Court in the case of R.Raman vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., (supra), and submitted that this Court would have territorial jurisdiction. Firstly it is to be noted that both the cases before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal as regards the pre-deposit, but in exercise of its discretion extended the time for compliance by two months. Though the appellant has not filed the copy of the orders passed in the writ petitions, it has been recorded in the order passed by the Tribunal, dated 20.09.2001. The appellant did not comply with the order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and did not deposit the amount within the time granted. Having failed to do so, the appellant filed Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal to restore the appeal and to modify the pre-deposit order. This came to be rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 20.09.2011. Nevertheless, there was an observations by the Tribunal that the Commissioner should not decline to accept the sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, the appellant pays the sum in one lump sum within one month. The appellant complied with the order and the said amount has been deposited on 22.10.2001. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal by order dated 19.12.2005. Therefore, the appellant having already agitated the matter before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as against the interim order of the Tribunal and knowing fully well that the adjudicating authority as well....