Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 506 - CESTAT MUMBAIPrayer of Out-of-turn disposal of appeal due to indefinite deferment of proceedings - Piecemeal adjudication - correctness of the presumption by the adjudicating authority that the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay was intended to cease further proceedings in entirety - HELD THAT:- It is well-settled in law that an order or judgement, of appellate authority or constitutional court, operates qua the appellant/petitioner and respondent therein and none else even though qualified to be cited as precedent should another identically, or even similarly, situated appellant/petitioner plead for nondiscriminatory applicability for such relief/detriment. Show cause notice, under Customs Act, 1962, is prelude to adjudicating upon proposal to visit detriment on any person or entity which maybe that of recovery of duty, with attendant interest and penalty, of withholding of amount claimed as refund, of confiscation of goods for vesting with the Central Government or of penalty being imposed. Such notices, mandated in proceedings arising from section 27, section 28 and section 124 of Customs Act, 1962, comprise allegations against, as also the proposed consequential detriment prescribed by law to, each of the entities or persons therein. It is worth noting that, even in the same order, some outcomes may flow from ex parte proceedings which stand on an entirely different footing from others in which defence has been offered. Reversion to such natural autonomy, inhering for each noticee, is, thus, neither improper nor is the ‘piece-meal’ disposal that has been judicially frowned upon; it is the partial disposal of issues in a notice, whether in relation to one noticee or all, that jeopardizes the integrity of the proceedings warranting appellate or writ intervention. It is merely the convenience of common adjudication, a privilege that the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) invoked under the authority of its delegated empowerment in Customs Act, 1962, which enabled collating of the separate imports and, indeed, of the three separate importers in one notice. By no stretch would this be ‘piece-meal’ disposal of the show cause notice. There is no reason to countenance the indefinite transfer of the proceedings, initiated against the appellant, to ‘call book’ as communicated in the impugned order. Furthermore, the impending liquidation of the appellant company, approved by the duly constituted statutory authority, should also not be held to ransom by such extraordinary recourse on the part of an adjudicating authority. Approval thereto would not only impinge upon the intent of the law relating to insolvency and bankruptcy that replaced another which was found to be counterproductive by the supreme legislative organ of the State but also deprive the noticees of prompt appellate remedies should need thereof arise. In short, the appellate process should not be obviated by such peremptory action on the part of the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority is directed to dispose of the notice issued to the appellant herein forthwith, and in any circumstances, within four weeks from uploading of this order - appeal disposed off.
|