AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 195
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (briefly 'the CESTAT' hereinafter) in Appeal No. C/85171/2018 (Poonam Courier Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs). 3. Appeal was admitted on 10.06.2019 on the following substantial question of law :- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, was the Tribunal justified in entertaining the appeal against order of the Commissioner under Regulation 14(1) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 (the Regulation) without the party/appellant before it exhausting its remedy of representation before the Chief Commissioner under Regulation 14(2) of the Regulation ?" 4. Short point for consideration is whether ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. Against the aforesaid order respondent had initially moved the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 14(2) of the aforesaid Regulations. Subsequently, the said representation was withdrawn whereafter appeal was filed before the CESTAT under section 129A of the Customs Act. By the order dated 10.04.2018 the appeal was allowed and deregistration and detrimental consequences upon the respondent were set aside. 7. Thereafter the present appeal has been preferred by the Commissioner on the substantial question of law as extracted above. 8. Mr. Vijay Kantharia, learned counsel for the appellant submits that when Regulation 14(2) of the Regulations provides for a remedy to the aggrieved person, without availing such rem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the manner provided in section 129C. It can only pass such orders as is provided in section 129B. It does not possess plenary jurisdiction like a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The self imposed restrictions which a High Court exercises while refraining from invoking its writ jurisdiction in the face of adequate and efficacious alternative remedy is not available to a statutory tribunal like the CESTAT whose powers and functions are circumscribed by the statute. Therefore the two decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant are not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. On the other hand, we find that the decisions of this Court in Bombino Expres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case may be] considers that any of such grounds against an Authorized Courier shall not be established prima facie without an inquiry in the matter, he may conduct the inquiry to determine the ground and in the meanwhile pending the completion of such inquiry, may suspend the registration of the Authorized Courier. If no ground is established against the Authorized Courier, the registration so suspended shall be restored. (2) Any Authorized Courier or the officer of the Customs authorized by the [Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs or Chief Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be] in this behalf, if aggrieved by the order of the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be] passed u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Customs or Chief Commissioner of Customs if aggrieved by an order passed under Regulation 14(1). Thus, the remedy provided under Regulation 14(2) is by way of a representation to the higher authority. 15. On the other hand, section 129A of the Customs Act deals with appeals to Appellate Tribunal. Section 129A(1)(a) makes it abundantly clear that any person aggrieved by a decision or order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such decision or order. 16. In Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd. (supra) this Court took the view that merely because a remedy of making a representation is provided by Regulation 14(2) that would not di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded in the Regulation 14(2) is a representation and ultimately the remedy of appeal is available under the Customs Act, 1962 and rejection or otherwise of such representation will not take away the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal from Order-in-Original. In the present case the appellant has withdrawn the appeal but if there is no merger and what is decided is only a representation, then withdrawal of the appeal will also fall within the ambit of the view taken by this Court in Principal Commissioner of Customs v. Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd.. In view of the dicta of the Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Customs v. Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd., we cannot accept the argument advanced by the appellant that the Tribu....