Minesh Shah Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Minesh Shah vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 19, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29680

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/29680
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, J T J.H.
Decided On: Dec 19, 2002
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Minesh Shah

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(162)ELT1139Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....other applicant is concerned, the case of the department is that he actively helped m/s.national impex corporation to sell the goods obtained under the advance licence in the open market in contravention of the conditions under which import under advance licence was permitted.3. it is plea of the applicants before us that while the show cause notice was made answerable to the commissioner of customs (imports) mumbai, the notice was adjudicated by the commissioner of customs (adj.), mumbai who does not have any jurisdiction to decide the case in the absence of any specific order of the central government transferring the jurisdiction to him. in this connection, they rely upon the tribunal's decision in the case of consolidated enterprises v.commissioner of customs (g), mumbai, [2001 (137) e.l.t. 1223] which has been followed in the case of auto ignition ltd. v. commissioner of customs, acc, mumbai 4. we find force in the appellants' plea regarding lack of jurisdiction and, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the commissioner of customs having jurisdiction to adjudicate the show cause notice.5. appeals are thus allowed by remand in so far as they relate to the present appellants.

Full Judgment

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 7.5 lakhs each, imposed on the above applicants, we find that it possible to hear and decide the appeal themselves and hence after waiving the pre-deposit, we proceed to dispose of the appeals themselves with the consent of both sides.

2. By the impugned order, duty demand has been confirmed against M/s.

National Impex Corporation on the ground that they did not fulfil the export obligation in terms of the advance licence under which they imported the goods. As far as the present appellants are concerned, it is the case of the department that Shri Minesh Shah has sold the goods on highseas sales contract and endorsed the Bill of Lading in the name of M/s. National Impex Corporation and, therefore, he knowingly helped M/s. National Impex Corporation. As far as the other applicant is concerned, the case of the department is that he actively helped M/s.

National Impex Corporation to sell the goods obtained under the advance licence in the open market in contravention of the conditions under which import under advance licence was permitted.

3. It is plea of the applicants before us that while the Show Cause Notice was made answerable to the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Mumbai, the notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs (Adj.), Mumbai who does not have any jurisdiction to decide the case in the absence of any specific order of the Central Government transferring the jurisdiction to him. In this connection, they rely upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Consolidated Enterprises v.Commissioner of Customs (G), Mumbai, [2001 (137) E.L.T. 1223] which has been followed in the case of Auto Ignition Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, ACC, Mumbai 4. We find force in the appellants' plea regarding lack of jurisdiction and, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Commissioner of Customs having jurisdiction to adjudicate the Show Cause Notice.

5. Appeals are thus allowed by remand in so far as they relate to the present appellants.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Minesh Shah vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge J Balasundaram, J T J.H.