9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Nos. C/S/1412, 952, 1009-1010, 991, 1007, 1005, 954, 986, 989 and 979/2008 in Appeal Nos. C/747, 634, 678-679, 663, 676, 674, 636, 658, 661 and 651/2008 S/Shri Mithil Dave, Advocate, Avinash Singh Gautam, C.A., H.R. Shetty, D.H. Nadkarni and Jagmohan Bansal, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri B.K. Singh, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - After examining t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Customs Act, 1962. Under Notification No. 37/03 ibid, the CBEC had, under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act, appointed the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai alongwith three other Commissioners, as Commissioners of Customs, each having jurisdiction over the whole of India for the purposes of adjudicating cases as assigned to them by the Board. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is which of the two Commissioners had jurisdiction for adjudicating the show-cause notice. Both sides have referred to the notifications and orders of the Board as well as to the provisions of Section 4 of the Customs Act. The Jt. CDR has also referred to Shri Rajesh Totla v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2001 (138) E.L.T. 398 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein this Tribunal considered a somewhat similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board to two different Commissioners at different points of time, to the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai on 2-8-05 and to the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva on 28-12-05. In our considered view, the assignment dated 28-12-05, impliedly superseded the earlier assignment dated 2-8-05. In other words, on and after 28-12-05, the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
