Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. M.B. Electronics

Commissioner of Customs (import) vs M.B. Electronics

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 01, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/42006

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/42006
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: A Wadhwa, S T S.S.
Decided On: Mar 01, 2006
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs (import)

Respondent

M.B. Electronics

Legal References

Reported In: (2007)(207)ELT225Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. after rejecting the stay petition filed by the revenue, we take up the appeals itself, inasmuch the same have been filed on the basis of authorization given by commissioner of customs (import), against an order passed by commissioner of customs (import). it is seen that the impugned order was passed by commissioner of customs (i) on 27-1-05.authorization letter has been issued by commissioner of customs (import), which reads as follows : i have gone through the order-in-original no. cao-no.cc(ygp) 01/2005 adj. acc, dt. 17-1-2005 passed by the commissioner of customs (import), acc, sahar, mumbai. for the reasons recorded in the grounds of appeal (enclosed herewith), i am of the considered opinion that the order-in-original cited above is neither legal nor proper. hence, in exercise of the powers vested in me under sub-section (4) of section 129d of the customs act, 1962, i hereby authorize deputy commissioner of customs, group vb, air cargo complex, sahar, andheri (e), mumbai to file application for stay in the said order-in-original and also to file an appeal on my behalf before the appellate tribunal, mumbai against the said order-in-original.2. as per the provisions of section 129a of the customs act, 1962. the orders passed by commissioner are to be reviewed by the board. no jurisdiction vests in the commissioner to review the order of another commissioner and to authorize the deputy commissioner to file an appeal their against. as such, we are of the view that the authorization letter issued by commissioner of customs is without any jurisdiction.accordingly, the appeals filed by the revenue on the basis of the said authorization are not maintainable. the same are accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. After rejecting the stay petition filed by the Revenue, we take up the appeals itself, inasmuch the same have been filed on the basis of authorization given by Commissioner of Customs (Import), against an order passed by Commissioner of Customs (Import). It is seen that the impugned order was passed by Commissioner of Customs (I) on 27-1-05.

Authorization letter has been issued by Commissioner of Customs (Import), which reads as follows : I have gone through the Order-in-Original No. CAO-No.CC(YGP) 01/2005 adj. ACC, dt. 17-1-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Sahar, Mumbai.

For the reasons recorded in the grounds of appeal (enclosed herewith), I am of the considered opinion that the Order-in-original cited above is neither legal nor proper. Hence, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Sub-section (4) of Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962, I hereby authorize Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Group VB, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Andheri (E), Mumbai to file application for stay in the said Order-in-original and also to file an appeal on my behalf before the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai against the said Order-in-original.

2. As per the provisions of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The orders passed by Commissioner are to be reviewed by the Board. No jurisdiction vests in the Commissioner to review the order of another Commissioner and to authorize the Deputy Commissioner to file an appeal their against. As such, we are of the view that the authorization letter issued by Commissioner of Customs is without any jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Revenue on the basis of the said authorization are not maintainable. The same are accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Customs (import) vs M.B. Electronics Same Subject Customs Same Judge A Wadhwa, S T S.S.