Pee Jay International Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Pee Jay International vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 06, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/42050

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/42050
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: M Ravindran
Decided On: Mar 06, 2006
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

Pee Jay International

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (2006)(109)ECC472

Excerpt

.....by the commissioner (appeals) referred to various notifications issued regarding jurisdiction of various commissioner (appeals). we find that if commissioner (appeals) has no jurisdiction to hear appeal against which the order passed by the additional commissioner (customs) at amritsar. instead of doing so, the commissioner (appeals) dismissed the appeal. he should have transferred the appeal papers to the commissioner (appeals) who has the jurisdiction or returned the appeal papers to appellant for pressing before the commissioner (appeals) who has the jurisdiction. in the circumstances the impugned order is set aside after waiving the pre-deposit of whole of duty and penalty. the appeal is restored and we direct the chief commissioner, chandigarh to assign the appeal to the commissioner (appeals) whose jurisdiction to decide the appeal. the appeal is disposed of as indicated above.4. in the facts and circumstances the above said decision of the division bench squarely covers the issue before me. the impugned orders are set aside after waiving the pre-deposit of the whole duty and the penalty. the appeals are allowed and remanded with the direction to the chief commissioner, chandigarh to assign the appeals to the commissioner (appeals) in whose jurisdiction appeals fall. appeals are disposed of in above terms.

Full Judgment

1. In all these stay applications the appellants' appeals have been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that he has no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeals in respect of the orders passed by the Adjudicating authority at Amritsar. All these 3 appeals are taken together as the issue involved is same and disposed of by one order.

2. Learned Advocate points out that in an identical issue and in respect of the same notification the Division Bench in its Order No.71/06-Cus., dated 3-2-2006 2006 (196) E.L.T. 150 (Tribunal) has remanded the matter back to the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh. He produced the Order. Learned D.R. submits that the issue decided by the Division Bench is of identical nature.

3. Perused the records. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that he does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter arising out of orders of the Adjudicating Authority at Amritsar. I find that the Division Bench in its above referred order in the case of Sharma Woolen Mills Ltd. at Para 4 has held as under: We have gone through the impugned order. We find that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) referred to various notifications issued regarding jurisdiction of various Commissioner (Appeals). We find that if Commissioner (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to hear appeal against which the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Customs) at Amritsar. Instead of doing so, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. He should have transferred the appeal papers to the Commissioner (Appeals) who has the jurisdiction or returned the appeal papers to appellant for pressing before the Commissioner (Appeals) who has the jurisdiction.

In the circumstances the impugned order is set aside after waiving the pre-deposit of whole of duty and penalty. The appeal is restored and we direct the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh to assign the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) whose jurisdiction to decide the appeal. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.

4. In the facts and circumstances the above said decision of the Division Bench squarely covers the issue before me. The impugned orders are set aside after waiving the pre-deposit of the whole duty and the penalty. The appeals are allowed and remanded with the direction to the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh to assign the appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) in whose jurisdiction appeals fall. Appeals are disposed of in above terms.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Pee Jay International vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge M Ravindran