Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
1966 (9) TMI 41 - HC - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, Calcutta to issue a show cause notice. 2. Authority of the Collector of Customs, Madras to transfer the case to the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a dealer in kirana and chemicals, had goods seized by the Central Intelligence Unit of the Collectorate of Central Excise, Madras, which were despatched from Calcutta. The petitioner sought the return of the goods and challenged the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, Calcutta to issue a show cause notice. The Customs Act delineates officers' jurisdiction by territorial boundaries and pecuniary limits. While the Collector of Customs, Calcutta issued the notice, the contention was that as the goods were seized in Madras, the Calcutta Collector lacked jurisdiction. However, the Act empowers Customs officers to act subject to conditions imposed by the Board or the Act, without territorial restrictions. The Act's provisions on confiscation and penalties do not limit the Collector of Customs, Calcutta's jurisdiction based on the location of goods. The goods' origin in Calcutta and the alleged offense there support the Calcutta Collector's jurisdiction, despite the seizure in Madras. 2. The petitioner also challenged the authority of the Collector of Customs, Madras to transfer the case to the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The Madras Collector's communication indicated a transfer of cases to the West Bengal Collector. The Act does not explicitly grant the Madras Collector the power to transfer cases to another jurisdiction. However, it was interpreted that the Madras Collector intended to hand over files to the appropriate jurisdiction rather than transfer jurisdiction itself. The decision on the Madras Collector's jurisdiction over the goods would depend on investigation findings. Ultimately, the contention that the Collector of Customs, Calcutta lacked jurisdiction was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the Writ petitions. In conclusion, the High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, Calcutta to issue a show cause notice and clarified the Madras Collector's action as a transfer of files rather than jurisdiction. As a result, the Writ petitions were dismissed.
|