Court affirms that appeals against orders from Commissioner (in-situ) should be filed with CESTAT, dismissing Customs Department's objections.
In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has reaffirmed the jurisdiction of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in adjudicating appeals against orders passed by Commissioners promoted on an in-situ basis. The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, challenging the CESTAT’s decision favoring Alka Petro Global Pvt. Ltd., a case that centered on the procedural validity of the appeal process under the Customs Act, 1962.
The case arose from an Order-in-Original issued by Shri Ram Het Meena, who was promoted to the post of Commissioner of Customs on an in-situ basis. The Customs Department contended that the appeal against this order should have been directed to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Kandla, based on an erroneous reference to Section 128A of the Customs Act in the original order. However, the CESTAT accepted the appeal from Alka Petro Global Pvt. Ltd. under Section 129A, which allows for appeals to be heard by the CESTAT if the order is issued by a Commissioner acting as an adjudicating authority.
The High Court, presided by Justices A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi, examined the procedural aspects and confirmed that Shri Meena was indeed acting within his promoted capacity as a Commissioner. The court highlighted that the promotion order from the Government of India explicitly allowed him to operate in this capacity until a regular posting was assigned. Thus, the appeal rightly fell within the jurisdiction of the CESTAT under Section 129A, despite the erroneous reference.
The court criticized the Customs Department for not raising objections during the adjudication process but only questioning the jurisdiction after the CESTAT ruled in favor of the respondent. The High Court noted that the Department’s attempt to rectify the alleged procedural mistake through a Rectification of Mistake Application was also rightly dismissed by the CESTAT, affirming the validity of the proceedings conducted by Commissioner Meena.
In its judgment, the High Court clarified that the mere mention of Section 128A in the Order-in-Original did not alter the statutory remedy available under Section 129A. The court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the defined appellate mechanisms under the Customs Act.
With this ruling, the Gujarat High Court has set a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the procedural integrity of appeals involving Commissioner-level adjudications. The decision is a victory for Alka Petro Global Pvt. Ltd. and provides clarity on the jurisdictional scope of CESTAT in such matters.
Bottom Line:
Customs Law - Order-in-Original passed by Commissioner (in-situ) promoted on in-situ basis validly challenged before CESTAT under section 129A of Customs Act, 1962, despite erroneous reference to Section 128A in the Order-in-Original.
Statutory provision(s): Customs Act, 1962 Sections 128A, 129A
