TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 634
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.71214/2019 dated 28.06.2019 on the ground of amount involved being less than that permitted to the Revenue for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. 2.2 Rectification Application filed by Revenue was also dismissed vide Miscellaneous Order No.70343/2019 dated 07.11.2019. 2.3 Revenue carried the matter to jurisdictional High Court Lucknow Bench and Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated 29.03.2023 remanded the matter back to the Tribunal observing as follows:- "This appeal was admitted by this Court on 31.07.2020 and the following substantial questions of law were framed in terms of Section 130 of the Act, 1962:- "A. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the matter the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal under litigation policy when undisputedly the redemption fine and penalty alone was not the subject matter of dispute. B. Whether the Tribunal was correct in presuming the monetary limit below which appeal shall not be filed as Rs.20,00,000/- on the basis of instructions dated 11/7/2018." The contention raised by Sri Dipak Seth, learned counsel for the appellant is that CESTAT has dismissed the appeal of the appellant bearing No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Customs Act and all other pleas which may be raised by the respondent or the appellant therein." 2.4 Review Petition filed against the said order has been dismissed by order dated 22.05.2023. 3.1 Respondent to the revenue appeal has filed this Miscellaneous Application for bringing on record all the decisions including those of the High Court. After placing on record the decisions of tribunal and High Court following prayer is made:- "A- Misc. Application be allowed and if this Hon'ble Court deems appropriate then the same be decided in light of the observation passed by the Hon'ble High Court for ascertainment of threshold limit of the litigation policy keeping in view the facts and circumstances in the matter at hand; B- To dismiss the appeal of the Revenue as per the new monetary limit vide instruction F. No.390/Misc./30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023; C- To dismiss the appeal of the Revenue for the same is not maintainable being the matter of goods imported as baggage under Section 129-A, proviso (a), therefore this Hon'ble High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal." 4.1 I have heard Shri Nishant Mishra learned Advocate appear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned any jurisdiction to entertain and consider such appeals. 5.4 In case of Sans Frontier [2023-TIOL-1728-HC-DEL-CUS] while interpreting the same provision Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed:- "61. We do not agree with the said contention advanced on behalf of the Firm. It is settled law that competence of the Court to try a case goes to the very root of the jurisdiction. The inherent lack of jurisdiction makes the order passed by the Court void in law. There is also no inherent right to file an appeal and the same is granted by the statute. In the absence of any such right, the learned CESTAT being a creature of statute, did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the same. No Court or Tribunal is empowered to usurp jurisdiction, which it does not have. Any order passed by a Tribunal that does not have the jurisdiction to pass such an order, is non est. The invalidity of such orders can be set up whenever they are sought to be enforced. 62. It is well-settled that the order passed by a Court, which does not have the subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue, would be a nullity. No consent, waiver or acquiescence can confer jurisdiction upon a Court, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or duty to adjudicate on a matter. A statute limiting the jurisdiction of a court may contain provisions enabling the parties to extend the jurisdiction by consent." 32. In Bahrein Petroleum Co. [(1966) 1 SCR 461 : AIR 1966 SC 634] this Court also held that neither consent nor waiver nor acquiescence can confer jurisdiction upon a court, otherwise incompetent to try the suit. It is well settled and needs no authority that "where a court takes upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing". A decree passed by a court having no jurisdiction is non est and its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced as a foundation for a right, even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings. A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a coram non judice." 64. Therefore, even if it is to be assumed that the Revenue had consented to the learned CESTAT hearing the appeal, the defect of lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured. 65. Having arrived at the conclusion that the order passed by the learned CESTAT was without jurisdiction, the Revenue, thus, was right in observing that the refund order ....