2026 (7) TMI 770

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "CESTAT") in Customs Appeal No. 51152/2025. By the impugned order, the CESTAT has held that an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 is not maintainable on the ground that the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010 provide a remedy of representation before the Chief Commissioner against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs revoking the Authorised Courier licence. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant is an Authorised Courier registered under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010. Pursuant to proceedings initiated under the said Reg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l would lie to this Tribunal against the order-in-original, then, merely because a representation or a remedy of making a representation Is provided by the Regulations, that does not displace the appellate authority of the Tribunal. We do not think that the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has acted perversely in entertaining the appeal. More so, when the attempt of the Revenue was to question its jurisdiction on more than one occasion. Additionally, we have found that the Tribunal, If approached and it is regularly done in the cases of the Customs House Authorisation Regulations by the aggrieved agent, then, against the orders of the Tribunal restoring the licences or authorisation, the Revenue has brought app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ew Delhi. However, a perusal of the said decision shows that the issue examined therein pertained to the maintainability of an appeal against an order passed by the Chief Commissioner under Regulation 13(2) of the 2010 Regulations. 8. The present case, however, stands on a different footing. Here, the appellant preferred an appeal before the CESTAT against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 13(1) of the 2010 Regulations revoking the appellant's authorisation as an Authorised Courier, forfeiting the security deposit and imposing penalty. 9. The appellant's right to continue carrying on business as an Authorised Courier has been taken away by the Commissioner of Customs while exercising ....