TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (2) TMI 541
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re-deposit of the impugned demands. 3. Today, stay applications are listed before us. 4. During the course of arguments, Shri S.S. Sekhon, learned Advocate for the appellants took a preliminary objection that the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) has no jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice as per Notification No. 15/2002-Cus. (N.T.), dated 7-3-2002. Therefore, he prayed that before dealing with the case, their preliminary objection raised be decided first. 5. He submitted that as per the said Notification, the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) has the jurisdiction over the Mumbai, Thane and Raigad districts in the State of Maharashtra. As Sahar Air Cargo Complex and Sahar Airport are falling under Mumbai Suburban district, therefore, the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter falling the jurisdiction of Mumbai Suburban district. Hence, the show cause notice has been issued without jurisdiction and the said issue was taken up before the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority has given a vague finding. Therefore, the order is to be set aside. 6. Shri Y.K. Agrawal, Addl. Commissioner, learned AR replied to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... control of the Commissi-oners of Customs, Aircargo (Import) and General, Delhi, Aircargo (Export), Delhi, (ICDs), Delhi. 2 The National Capital Territory of Delhi, the whole of the State of Haryana and the NOIDA Export Processing Zone in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Commissi-oner of Customs (Preventive), Delhi. Additional Commissi-oners, or Joint Commissi-oners, of Customs working under the control of the Commissi-oner of Customs (Preventive), Delhi. Deputy Commissi-oners, or Assistant Commissi-oners, of Customs working under the control of the Commissi-oner of Customs (Preventive), Delhi. 3 a. Port of Mumbai, Mumbai Airport (Santa Cruz and Chatrapati Shivaji International Airports), the area under the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, and the designated areas in the Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone of India as declared by the Government of India from time to time. Commissi-oners of Customs, Mulund CFS and General, Mumbai, (Export), Mumbai, (Import), Mumbai, (Import) Nhava Sheva, (Export) Nhava Sheva, Additional Commissi-oners, or Joint Commissi-oners, of Customs working under the control of the Commissi-oners of Customs, Mulund CFS and Ge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bai, Air Cargo (Import), Mumbai, Air Cargo (Export) Mumbai are the area i.e. Port of Mumbai, Mumbai Airport, the area under the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, and the designated areas in the Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone of India as declared by the Government of India from time to time. From the above, it is clear that the Commissioner of Customs, Airport/Air Cargo, Import/Export is having the jurisdiction over whole of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation i.e. district of City of Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban district, but the same is not in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Prev.). The Mumbai Municipal Corporation covered both the districts namely City of Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban district. 10. We find that it is a case of import from Sahar Air Cargo Complex at Sahar Airport, which falls under the jurisdiction of Mumbai Suburban district and as per the Notification, the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) is having the jurisdiction over the district of Mumbai which itself not exist in the Revenue's record of the State of Maharashtra. Therefore, prima facie the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) has no jurisdiction over Sahar Air Cargo at Sahar Airpo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gly, whether the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) has jurisdiction over both these districts or not? 15. This issue was raised before the adjudicating authority and in his finding in para 15.2.2 of the impugned order dated 30-4-2009, he has held as follows :- "Against this background the expression "Mumbai District" used in Notification No. 15/2002-Cus. (N.T.), dated 7-3-2002 covers either both Mumbai City District and Mumbai suburban District or it does not cover any of these districts at all. Since the latter argument gives trivial result, the acceptable argument is that the expression "Mumbai District" will include both Mumbai City District as well as Mumbai Suburban District. Since the jurisdiction assigned covers Mumbai, Thane and Raigad Districts which are contiguous, there is no reason to leave out the area covered by Mumbai Suburban District alone." 16. Learned Member (Judicial) has held that since Sahar Air Cargo at Sahar Airport falls under Mumbai Suburban district, the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Mumbai has no jurisdiction. He has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Noble Asset Co. Ltd. reported in 2008 (230) E.L.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....59 (Tri.), wherein it was held that - "it is well settled that any interpretation which says that a piece of legislation was redundant or meaningless ought to be avoided." The said order of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court on merits. Though the said decision was passed in context of the Central Excise Notification No. 226/77, the ratio of the same, in my view, applies to Customs Notification also. 19. Again, this Tribunal in the case of British India Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 727 held that every word in a provision has to be given due meaning and an interpretation so as not to make any part of provision redundant should be adopted. This judgment of the Tribunal was also upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court on merits as reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T. A78 (S.C.). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 2002 (141) E.L.T. 593 (S.C.) held as follows : - "No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words. No p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said expression would cover both Mumbai City district as well as Mumbai Suburban district. In view of the above, I am of the view that the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) has jurisdiction over Sahar Air Cargo Complex falling under the jurisdiction of Mumbai Suburban district. It will also be relevant to mention here that the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) has been notified as proper officer of Customs by retrospectively amending Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 vide the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011. Consequently, the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Mumbai has jurisdiction to issue show cause notice in the instant case and the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected. The appeals and stay applications need to be considered on merits. Sd/- (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) As there is a difference of opinion arose between the Members on the preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate for the appellants. Therefore the matter is placed before the Hon'ble Vice President/HOD for appointing a 3rd Member to decide the issue. DIFFERENCE OF OPINION Following difference of opinion is placed befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner of Customs (Preventive) and the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) has no jurisdiction over Mumbai Suburban District which falls under jurisdiction of Mumbai Municipal Corporation and includes Sahar Air Cargo Complex. Therefore, learned Mumbai (Judicial) has rightly held that Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) has not jurisdiction over the Sahar Air Cargo Complex as he is not appointed as Commissioner of Customs for area falling under Mumbai Suburban District. 23.1 He further submitted that Hon'ble Member (Technical) has held that if it is held that there is no such thing as 'Mumbai District' then the expression 'Mumbai District of State of Maharashtra' becomes entirely redundant and such an interpretation is impermissible in law as it is well settled principle that the words used in the Section, Rule or Notification should not be rendered redundant and some meaning must be given to the words used in the statute. He submitted that it has been held by the Hon'ble Member (Technical) that expression 'Mumbai District' has to be interpreted in a harmonious manner and if that is done, the said expression would cover both Mumbai City District as well as Mumbai Suburb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nding, 'Mumbai' comprises of all areas as were hitherto covered within the two districts presently designated 'City of Mumbai' and 'Mumbai Suburban District'. Merely because for the sake of administrative needs an area having been re-designated into two parts, cannot form the basis to deny the applicability of law of the land to a piece of land with changed nomenclature for a specified purpose. He submitted that such division into two districts is only for the purpose of state Revenue administration and not other substantive reasons as can be understood from the fact that for Postal Department of the Union Government and Mumbai Police of the State Government, 'Mumbai' comprises of all areas of the two revenue districts. The term 'Mumbai' as a name of place, is undeniably valid and legally sustainable to include in its ambit 'City of Mumbai' and 'Mumbai Suburban District'. He further contented that the conclusions drawn by the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) in the instant case are not legally tenable and in the Notification No. 15/2002, the word 'Mumbai' covers both 'Mumbai City District' and 'Mumbai Suburban District' as held by the Hon'ble Member (Technical). He relied upon the followi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f officers where particular place has been divided into two areas as contended by the appellant in case of Mumbai after its division of Mumbai into Mumbai City District and Mumbai Suburban District. Therefore, the facts of this case are distinguishable from the present case. 26.2 In the case of C.K. Geever (supra), the Additional Director General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) had issued a show cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, which was held to have been issued without jurisdiction by the Tribunal. In this case, the Additional DGCEI was appointed as Commissioner of Customs by the Central Government under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the C.B.E. & C. under Section 5(1) was to specify the area of jurisdiction, but admittedly the Board did not do so. It was held by the Tribunal that without any territorial jurisdiction demarcated for him by the Central Government under Section 4(1) or by the Board under Section 5(1), the ADGCEI did not become 'proper officer' and the ADGCEI has no power to exercise under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. In the present case before us, Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) has been given powers to exercise j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Hon'ble Member (Technical) in his order. I find that the learned Advocate, in his written submission, has stated that "even though the facts are not exactly the same." Since, the facts are not similar to the present case, the ratio of that decision is not applicable to the present case. 27. The Hon'ble Member (Judicial) has held that Sahar Air Cargo Complex at Sahar Airport falls in jurisdiction of Mumbai Suburban District and as per Notification No. 15/2002, Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) is having jurisdiction over the District of Mumbai, which itself does not exist in the record of State of Maharashtra, therefore, prima facie the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) has no jurisdiction on the Sahar Air Cargo Complex at Sahar Airport. If this view is accepted then the expression 'Mumbai District of State of Maharashtra' remained in Notification No. 15/2002 becomes totally meaningless and such interpretation is not permitted in the law. I agree with the Hon'ble Member (Technical) while placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra), British India Corporation Ltd. (supra), Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Amr....