TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 453
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a brief history which would be required for the proper adjudication of the appeal. The dispute arises from an earlier order passed by this High Court in W.P.No.8349 of 2017, decided on 02.11.2017. The respondent herein who was the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition had claimed for quashment of the order dated 02.02.2017 passed by the Chief Commissioner, whereby, he has declined the compounding of the offence under the Customs Act under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court holding that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal available before the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Tribunal. And the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 SCC OnLine Guj 9021 : (2016) 339 ELT 67 allowed the appeal of the appellant and remanded the matter back to the Chief Commissioner to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity to the appellant to make oral as well as written submissions along with documentary evidence if any. It is this order passed by the Appellate Tribunal on 05.04.2023 which is under challenge in the present appeal. 6. Referring to Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the matter was one, which could not had been entertained by the Appellate Tribunal, as the order under Section 137 of the Act is not an appealable order. Moreover, the order passed under Section 137 of the Act is also not the one wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., either before or after the institution of prosecution, be compounded by the Chief Commissioner of Customs on payment, by the person accused of the offence to the Central Government, of [such compounding amount and in such manner of compounding] as may be specified by rules.] [Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to- (a) a person who has been allowed to compound once in respect of any offence under sections 135 and 135A; (b) person who has been accused of committing an offence under this Act which is also an offence under any of the following Acts, namely: (i) the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) (ii) the Chemical Weapons Convention Act, 2000 (3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Chief Commissioner of Customs. 9. Now we may come to the provision of Section 129-A which deals with the appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. So far as the issue involved in the case, it would be relevant, to refer only to the provision under Section 129-A (1) (a), which for ready reference is reproduced hereunder: "Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order (a) a decision or order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority; A plain reading of the aforesaid provision of law, would clearly reflect that an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal would lie at the behest of any aggrieved person being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are "any authority", "competent to pass an order" and "or any decision under this Act". This in other words means, any authority that has been conferred with the power under the Act to pass an order or to decide upon an application would be an authority competent and thereby would become an adjudicating authority. 12. Keeping the aforesaid definition in mind, if we look at the provisions of Section 129-A (1) (a) which has been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs, would clearly reflect that this also is an inclusive provision which has to be given a wide interpretation. As the section itself begins with any person aggrieved by any of the orders and then clause 'a' of Section 1 says either be it a decision or be it an order passed by t....