Case Law Details
Principal Commissioner of Custom Vs Khan Sadaf (Supreme Court of India)
In the case of Principal Commissioner of Custom Vs Khan Sadaf, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had the jurisdiction to entertain an application for compounding of an offence under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962.
jurisdiction of CESTAT to entertain application for compounding of offence under Section 137 of Customs Act, 1962: SC kept the issue open
The petitioner, represented by learned senior counsel Ms. Nisha Bagchi, argued that the High Court had directed the respondent to pursue an appeal to CESTAT as an alternative remedy. However, it was contended that CESTAT did not have the authority to adjudicate on matters related to compounding of offences under Section 137 of the Customs Act.
While CESTAT had not made a decision on the merits of the compounding application, it had remanded the matter to the Chief Commissioner (Original Authority) for reconsideration. The respondent had initially filed a writ petition, which the petitioner argued should have been entertained by the High Court on its merits.
Considering these submissions and the fact that CESTAT had remanded the matter for reconsideration by the Chief Commissioner, the Supreme Court declined to interfere in the case. It directed the Chief Commissioner to re-evaluate the compounding application in accordance with the law and to do so expeditiously. Additionally, the Court clarified that if either party was dissatisfied with the Chief Commissioner’s decision, they could file a writ petition before the High Court.
The Court left open the question of whether CESTAT had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the respondent, noting that CESTAT had done so based on the High Court’s order granting the respondent the liberty to pursue appellate remedies.
In summary, the Supreme Court disposed of the special leave petition, directing the Chief Commissioner to review the compounding application and allowing for the possibility of further legal recourse through a writ petition if necessary.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Delay condoned.
We have heard learned senior counsel Ms. Nisha Bagchi for the petitioner-Department.
She emphasized on the order of the High Court directing the respondent herein to avail the alternative remedy by way of an appeal to Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “CESTAT”) which, in fact, according to learned senior counsel, was not available to the respondent inasmuch as CESTAT has no jurisdiction to entertain an application vis-a-vis compounding of an offence under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962.
She however, submitted that CESTAT has not passed an order on merits of the said application but instead has remanded the matter to the Chief Commissioner (Original Authority) to consider afresh the application filed by the respondent seeking the compounding of the offence under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962.
She also submitted that the respondent had rightly filed a writ petition which ought to have been entertained on merits by the High Court.
Bearing in mind the submissions of learned senior counsel and also the fact that the CESTAT has now remanded the matter to the Chief Commissioner to reconsider the application filed for compounding of the offence under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962, we decline to interfere in the matter.
The Chief Commissioner is now to re-consider the said application in accordance with law. The Chief Commissioner to dispose of the said application filed under Section 137 of the Customs Act as expeditiously as possible.
It is needless to opine that in the event either of the parties is aggrieved by the order to be made by the Chief Commissioner a writ petition is maintainable before the High Court.
In view of the aforesaid order, the contentions of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the CESTAT had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the respondent herein is kept open for the reason that CESTAT entertained the appeal in the instant owing to the order passed by the High Court reserving liberty to the respondent herein to avail of the appellate remedy.
The special leave petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Author Bio
