2019 (12) TMI 299

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....allenge in this Petition is to the order in original dated 23.04.2019, made by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Adjudication Cell, Mumbai. 4. Ms. Desai, the learned Standing Counsel, at the outset, submitted that as against the order in original dated 23.04.2019, the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of an Appeal before the Customs, Excise, Service Tax Tribunal, Mumbai (CESTAT). As such, she submits that the present Petition may not be entertained. 5. Accordingly, we have heard Mr. Ferreira, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Desai, the learned Counsel for the respondent on the issue of alternate remedy.   6. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that the petitioner had raised an iss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rly cited before the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai. In fact, there is reference to such decisions in the impugned order in original. However, without considering such decisions or the import of such decisions, the objection relating to the jurisdiction, has been disposed off, merely by observing that this is a case of mis-declaration and therefore, the authorities will have jurisdiction over the matter. 11. Since, this is an issue, which goes to the root of the jurisdiction, it will not be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to alternate remedy. Besides, we find that there is virtually no consideration as such, of the objection as to the jurisdiction, in the present case. The decisions which were cited by the petitioner hav....