V.V.E. Forwarding Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs

V.V.E. Forwarding Services vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu Decided Sep 24, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16844

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/16844
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Decided On: Sep 24, 1999
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

V.V.E. Forwarding Services

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(114)ELT952Tri(Chennai)

Excerpt

.....number of appeals and writ petitions are pending before the high court of judicature at madras. he submits that as there is no jurisdiction for the tribunal under the said regulation therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable.3. the learned consultant on a perusal of the provisions of chalr submits that the appellants were under bona fide belief that appeals could be filed before the cegat and under that impression, this appeal had come to be heard.4. on a careful consideration of the submissions, we agree with the learned dr that there is no provision for filing any appeal against the order passed by the chief commissioner in terms of regulation 8(2) of chalr. the chief commissioner is the appellate authority in terms of the orders passed by the commissioner of customs and beyond that no provision has been made for filing appeal before the tribunal. appeals to the tribunal is regulated under section 129a of the customs act, wherein the appeals lie only against the order passed by the commissioner of customs or commissioner of customs (appeals) and there is no mention of any order passed by the chief commissioner of customs.5. in that view of the matter this appeal is rejected as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. the miscellaneous application for early hearing is disposed of accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal arises from Order No. 27/98, dated 1-4-1998 of the Chief Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Chennai, passed as an Appellate Authority under Regulation 8(2) of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulation, 1984 (CHALR 1984 - as amended). Preliminary objection was raised by learned DR stating that the issue pertains to non-grant of temporary licence as prayed by the appellants, in terms of Order-in-Original No. S/Misc/8/96 - Appln. No. 84, dated 13-3-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. Against such an order the appeal lies in terms of Regulation 8(2) of CHALR before the Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, which remedy the appellant has exhausted.

2. The learned DR points out that there is no provision made out for further appeal before the CEGAT and the appellants can only file Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, if they are aggrieved with the impugned order. He points out that on the same issue, large number of appeals and Writ Petitions are pending before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. He submits that as there is no jurisdiction for the Tribunal under the said Regulation therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable.

3. The learned Consultant on a perusal of the provisions of CHALR submits that the appellants were under bona fide belief that appeals could be filed before the CEGAT and under that impression, this appeal had come to be heard.

4. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we agree with the learned DR that there is no provision for filing any appeal against the order passed by the Chief Commissioner in terms of Regulation 8(2) of CHALR. The Chief Commissioner is the Appellate Authority in terms of the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs and beyond that no provision has been made for filing appeal before the Tribunal. Appeals to the Tribunal is regulated Under Section 129A of the Customs Act, wherein the appeals lie only against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and there is no mention of any order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Customs.

5. In that view of the matter this appeal is rejected as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. The Miscellaneous application for early hearing is disposed of accordingly.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tami... Same Parties V.V.E. Forwarding Services vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Customs