AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1530
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty, lower in rank than Commissioner of Customs, to the test of being legal and proper by the Tribunal. On the other hand is the submission, on behalf of applicants, that the order [final order no. 85523-85526 dated 24th March 2025] of the Tribunal remanded to original authority has not only not been complied with but also observed in its breach perversely enough to warrant interference before the appellate scheme in Customs Act, 1962 is stultified for all time to come. 2. Hence, mindful of the treacherous path before us and conscious of judicial decorum to which we are, inextricably, bound, we take up these applications for disposal assuring that we shall not touch upon anything other than the order [final order no. 85523-85526 dated 24th March 2025] disposing off appeal of the applicants herein on the earlier occasion that, in like manner, did not venture into the facts. A constraint circumscribed the Tribunal then, as now too, with the appeals coming up in most unusual circumstances which has bearing on the present proceedings. The applicants herein, who are officers of customs at various levels, were charged, along with importers and others, in a show cause notice propo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs to be of deliberated design, too, for the Central Government too is safeguarded by adjudgment by an independent organ of the State. And that being subject to merit review, binding of legislative mandate on a neutral institution is, even if not optimal, best safeguard against arbitrariness and misuse. The other '...against the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything purporting to be done in pursuance of this Act without giving the Central Government or such officer a month's previous notice in writing of the intended proceeding and of the cause thereof, or after the expiration of three months from the accrual of such cause' differently phrased about the proceedings - not excluding such as the one before us - affords protection to the very same three and, even if not absolute, as the first, through procedural pre-requisite and deadlines. That would appear also to be of deliberate design to ensure diligence on the part of customs authorities which may be deviated from only at the cost of non-compliance and inaction. Every proceeding in which officers of customs are noticees is, therefore, bound within legislated sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....torily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch.D 426] that where a statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. This principle has been followed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor [AIR 1936 PC 253 (1)] and also by this Court in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan -[AIR 1961 SC 1527, (para 9)] and also in State of UP v. Singhara Singh reported in AIR 1964 SC 358 (para 8). 36......It is one of the well known canons of interpretation that no statute should be interpreted in such a manner as to render a part of it redundant or surplusage.' in Chief Information Commissioner & Anr v. State of Manipur & Anr [AIR 2012 SC 864]. We do not have to dwell any further on the impropriety in disposal of the challenge before the first appellate authority in the light of settled law.' (emp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns on behalf of the respondent on the previous occasion, that is not the 'road less travelled' taken by the Tribunal as the order has clearly distinguished section 155 (1), with total lack any qualifying expression, and section 115(2) with 'purporting to be done in pursuance this Act' - a distinction that is neither coyly subtle nor amenable, except from a most perverse approach, to blurred overlap in the mind of an adjudicator. 6. Learned Counsel, Mr Sujay Kantawala, pointed out that the appeal of the applicants had not been dismissed by the Tribunal and the resumption of proceedings had been ordered to enable closure of a proceedings that had been initiated but was yet to be by the original authority. He submitted that, in such disposal, the proposition of the 'show cause notice' as notice intended under section 155(2) of Customs Act, 1962 was not only demonstrated lack of clarity in the mind of the lower authorities in the earlier round of litigation but also, having been discarded by the Tribunal as not sufficing, could not to be deployed as the 'T-spot' again except as show of defiance. He suggested that the adjudicating authority had, effectively, erased th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure to comply with the law so determined, and ascertainment so directed, taints de novo proceedings. Doubtlessly, that has to be tested and determined in appeal. As it should it be. 9. Before we come to our final disposition of these applications, we are constrained to make certain observations. Repetition of the discarded error in the earlier adjudication is defiance of the finality accorded by appellate rulings and, especially, as, by lack of challenge thereto, has not only attained finality but is now the stand of the Central Government. It is neither open to questioning as tenable nor to be reviewed by revival of the discarded proposition in fresh proceedings. That is not only anathema to judicial decorum but also evincing of contempt for law and its institutions. It is also contempt for superior executive authority who have, whether the original authority is pleased or displeased thereby, accepted the law as set out inspite of opportunity available for mounting challenge under the empowerment in section 129D of Customs Act, 1962. For an adjudicating authority, who voluntarily subordinated himself to appellate jurisdiction by adjudicating on a single aspect of the proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Collector (Appeals) and the other of the Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightly criticised this by conduct of the Assistant Collectors and the harassment to the assessee caused by the failure of these officers to give effect to the orders of authorities higher to them in the appellate heirarchy. It cannot be too vehemently emphasised that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities; The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department - in itself an objectionable phrase - and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by....