Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 920 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTSmuggling - Betel Nuts - Violation of order dated 31 March 2017 passed by the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) under the Chapter V B of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) containing Sections 28E to 28M. The only contention raised by the respondents is that because of change in law on account of dismissal of appeal by the Supreme Court against the order passed by CESTAT in case of other assessees, advance ruling is not binding. HELD THAT:- It is a well settled in law that the assessee can invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite an alternate statutory remedy of an appeal interalia on the ground that there is a breach of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, order passed is without jurisdiction or there is a challenge to the vires of the statute. In these circumstances, the Court can exercise writ jurisdiction inspite of appeal remedy being available to the petitioner. The decision of the CESTAT, Chennai Bench in case of S.T. Enterprises [2021 (3) TMI 27 - CESTAT CHENNAI] and Ayush Business Overseas [2021 (3) TMI 1285 - SC ORDER] certainly cannot be a binding precedent on High Court nor can it be binding on all the authorities/assessees throughout the country. The decision of the Chennai Bench of CESTAT is binding interse between the parties before the Tribunal and not the petitioner or the authorities having jurisdiction over the petitioner. The dismissal by the Supreme Court without going into merits of the case acts only as res judicata between the parties before the Court and same cannot be said that CESTAT bench decision amounts to a declaration of law. Therefore dismissal of appeal by the assessees before the Chennai Bench of CESTAT, by the Supreme Court does not attract provisions of Section 28 J(2) of the Act for not following decision of the advance ruling rendered in the petitioner’s own case. In the instant case, the respondents have passed the O-I-O contrary to the provisions of Section 28J of the Act and, therefore, the same is without jurisdiction. In view of the above discussion that the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction, writ petition is maintainable. The petitioner hence ought not to be relegated to take recourse to an appellate remedy. The impugned O-I-O dated 11th November 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
|