Regional Manager, Upsrtc Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Regional Manager, Upsrtc vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 17, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29638

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/29638
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Bajaj
Decided On: Dec 17, 2002
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Regional Manager, Upsrtc

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(161)ELT584TriDel

Excerpt

.....confiscated under section 115(2) of the customs act, as the same was found carrying computer parts of japanese and singaporian origin valued at rs. 9,46,000/- which too had been confiscated absolutely under section 111(d) of the customs act. these facts are evident from the bare perusal of the impugned order-in-original. the commissioner, through this order, also imposed penalty on various persons as detailed therein, of different amounts who were found involved in smuggling and transportation of those goods.while ordering confiscation of the bus, the learned commissioner has given option to the owner to get the same redeemed on payment of fine of rs. 1,00,000/-. it is this fine which has been sought to be quashed by the appellant through the present appeal.3. the learned jdr has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable as he is not owner of the bus who had been required to pay redemption fine for seeking redemption of the bus. to meet with this objection, it has been argued by the counsel that the appellant is a regional manager of upsrtc, who is owner of the bus and as such, is competent to file an appeal.4. in my view, the objection raised by the learned jdr deserves to be sustained. admittedly, upsrtc is owner of the bus which had been ordered to be confiscated under section 115(2) of the customs act and given an option to get the same redeemed on payment of fine of rs. 1,00,000/-. the validity of the imposition of redemption fine can only be challenged by the upsrtc. the appellant is only regional manager of the upsrtc. being regional manager, he cannot be said to be owner of the bus. as employee he has no independent locus standi to challenge the validity of the impugned order imposing redemption fine of rs. 1,00,000/- on the upsrtc. there is nothing on the record to suggest if upsrtc had even authorised the appellant to file the appeal on its behalf. the appeal, as is evident from the record, had been filed.....

Full Judgment

1. This appeal has been filed by the Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Faizabad for setting aside of redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed through the Order-in-Originai dated 19-9-97 by the Commissioner in respect of Bus No. UP-42A/8557.

2. The above said bus had been ordered to be confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, as the same was found carrying computer parts of Japanese and Singaporian origin valued at Rs. 9,46,000/- which too had been confiscated absolutely under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. These facts are evident from the bare perusal of the impugned Order-in-Original. The Commissioner, through this order, also imposed penalty on various persons as detailed therein, of different amounts who were found involved in smuggling and transportation of those goods.

While ordering confiscation of the bus, the learned Commissioner has given option to the owner to get the same redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is this fine which has been sought to be quashed by the appellant through the present appeal.

3. The learned JDR has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable as he is not owner of the bus who had been required to pay redemption fine for seeking redemption of the bus. To meet with this objection, it has been argued by the counsel that the appellant is a Regional Manager of UPSRTC, who is owner of the bus and as such, is competent to file an appeal.

4. In my view, the objection raised by the learned JDR deserves to be sustained. Admittedly, UPSRTC is owner of the bus which had been ordered to be confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act and given an option to get the same redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The validity of the imposition of redemption fine can only be challenged by the UPSRTC. The appellant is only Regional Manager of the UPSRTC. Being Regional Manager, he cannot be said to be owner of the bus. As employee he has no independent locus standi to challenge the validity of the impugned order imposing redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the UPSRTC. There is nothing on the record to suggest if UPSRTC had even authorised the appellant to file the appeal on its behalf. The appeal, as is evident from the record, had been filed by him in his own name. Moreover, the appeal in the name of Regional Manager, even otherwise is not maintainable, as it is only the name of the office and not a legal entity.

5. In the light of the facts and circumstances discussed above, in my view, the appeal filed by the Regional Manager is not maintainable and as such, the same is ordered to be dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Regional Manager, Upsrtc vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Customs Same Judge P Bajaj