AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1414
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Brief facts of the case are that on specific information officers of DRI, Surat investigated the exports made M/s. Ayush Exports, Astha Exim, Surat and others who had exported dyed / printed fabrics made from 100% polyester filament yarn, metal fitted rubber / moulded door bindings, ladies' night wear textile items etc. to UAE, Mauritius and other countries at allegedly over valued price so as to avail of excess DEPB licence benefit, rebate of duty and other export incentive fraudulently. On completion of investigation, Show Cause Notice (SCN), was issued to various persons including the appellants to deny the benefit of DEPB license to the transferees of the DEPB licenses, recovery of customs duty etc. along with the penalty on vari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e situs of the appellate authority who had passed the impugned order lies outside the territory. This would also ensure that an appeal against the Tribunal's order would lie before a single jurisdictional High Court over which it has exclusive superintendence and control. It would further not allow different appellants against a same OIO to take advantage of the conflict in law laid down in the judgments by different Tribunals/High Courts, if any. The Ld. A.R. prayed that since the appeals has been filed before the wrong Bench of the Tribunal, the same may be rejected for lack of jurisdiction. 3.2 The Ld. Advocate Shri S. Murugappan who appeared for the appellants requested for time to file his written submissions on the point of law. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce' or 'before a court lacking jurisdiction' and would be considered void or a nullity which is non est and of no legal effect. [See: Kiran Singh & Ors. Vs Chaman Paswan & Ors. - AIR 1954 SC 340]. 5. Section 152 of the Customs Act, 1962 empowers the Central Government to delegate the powers exercisable by CBEC (now CBIC) or any of it's officer under the Act, to any other officer of Customs by issuing a notification in the official Gazette. Such delegation may be unconditional or may be subject to conditions as specified in the notification issued in this regard. We find that the SCN in the impugned appeal covers the clearance of goods from Customs formations located in different parts of the country, including Ahmedabad, Chennai, Mum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....long to Tamilnadu and out of that 10 co-noticees only two of them have filed appeal before the CESTAT, Chennai (M/s. Habasit Lakoka and G Tech Stone Ltd). She submitted that once the appeal filed before CESTAT, Ahmedabad has been accepted and decided, it appears that there is no jurisdiction for CESTAT, Chennai for accepting the appeal filed by the other appellants against the same impugned order. She hence prayed that the appeals filed by the party may be rejected and render justice. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant Shri S. Murugappan, in his written submissions dated 08.09.2025 submitted as under: "The above appeal was filed before this Hon'ble CESTAT Bench at Chennai against the Order-in-Original No.23/MP/2012-13 date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncerned having jurisdiction may transfer the matter to the other Bench subject to the general or special order of the President in this regard" 4. In the present case, it appears that a few appellants have filed appeals before CESTAT, Ahmedabad Bench against the same order. 5. It is also noticed that in terms of a CESTAT Notification No. 1/2022 dated 24.01.2022, where appeals against the same order are filed before different benches, the same are to be heard by a particular bench in terms of a Special Order to be issued by the Hon'ble President. 6. Copies of the CEGAT Notification No. 5/1995 dated 31.05.1995 and CESTAT Notification No. 1/2022 dated 24.01.2022 are enclosed to this Memo. 7. Considering ....