TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1026
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nch and leave was sought to amend the memo to introduce additional grounds. The additional grounds, according to the counsel appearing for the assessee, would raise substantial questions of law. The four questions introduced by amendment read as under: "(a1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, action of seizure of goods i.e. Nylon filament yam contained in 105 cartons vide panchanama dated 9.07.2003 by the Superintendent of Central Excise (Preventive) Officer is bad in law and liable to be quashed, since the Superintendent of Central Excise (Preventive) Officer is not the proper officer for the purpose of the seizure of goods under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962? (a2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a show cause notice referable to Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, it is issued by the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, and to be precise, by the Deputy Commissioner (Preventive), Central Excise, Thane-I. Mr. Jain would concede that the order-in-original may be passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and a reply to the show cause notice was also addressed to him, but once the show cause notice itself is not issued by the competent authority, then, from the above acts of the assessee, his consent cannot be inferred. Even if consent can be inferred, no amount of consent will confer jurisdiction on an officer who is wholly incompetent to initiate or set the law in motion. Hence, according to Mr. Jain, this question....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal could not have upheld the order in original. In other words, the question or issue framed by the Tribunal took the appellant by surprise and the Tribunal should have, in the larger interest, granted time to the appellant/assessee and his Advocate to prepare thoroughly so as to answer the issue framed by the Tribunal assuming that it arises from the order-in-original or the Tribunal has an inherent power to frame it if it is otherwise arising from the adjudication. 4. For all these reasons, he would submit that this Appeal be admitted. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Jetly would submit that all the arguments canvassed before us are purely an after thought. The argument on jurisdiction is of a desperate assessee who has no answer to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et the law in motion, is also raised. The bonafides of the assessee are clear inasmuch as the order under challenge before the Tribunal has been complied with. All the amounts, including the penalties, have been paid and that is undisputed. 8. We find from the order under Appeal that the appellant's Advocate argued the Appeal extensively on merits. However, what the Tribunal holds in para 3 is that the issue involved in this case is regarding the redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority and penalties on the assessee. There was a search carried out on the godown of a Roadways and certain goods were seized by the Central Excise Commissionerate under a reasonable belief that these goods are not validly and legally brought i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we find that it arises from the order under Appeal. 10. Once these issues and which have been emphasized by us above squarely arise for consideration, then, we admit this Appeal on the following newly added substantial questions of law: "(a1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, action of seizure of goods i.e. Nylon filament yarn contained in 105 cartons vide panchanama dated 9.07.2003 by the Superintendent of Central Excise (Preventive) Officer is bad in law and liable to be quashed, since the Superintendent of Central Excise (Preventive) Officer is not the proper officer for the purpose of the seizure of goods under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962? (a2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, sinc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by directing that, on the appellant/assessee before us paying costs quantified at Rs. 50,000/to the Revenue within a period of four weeks from today, the Appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal to stand revived for a decision afresh on all the points which we have summarized above. We clarify that beyond inviting the attention of the Tribunal to the issues and controversy, we have not expressed any opinion on either contentions. All that we restate is that old matters have to be disposed of expeditiously. True it is that primacy also has to be given to them. True it is that unnecessary accommodation and adjournments to the appellants like the assessees and their counsel should not be given, still, at the root of this is rendering of comp....