TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taneous search operations were conducted by the officers attached to the Office of the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (ADG, DGCEI) on 29-1-2003 at the premises M/s. Copier Force India Limited (CFI) and its associates. Statements of various persons recorded and documents recovered indicated that CFI had illicitly procured used photocopier components of foreign origin without paying the customs duty; they and had manufactured photocopiers and cleared clandestinely evading central excise duty due thereon. The Additional Director General, DGCEI, Chennai issued a Show Cause Notice No. 35/2003 dated 13-8-2003 alleging illicit import of photocopier sub-assemblies by CFI and dummy units floated by it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Customs (Seaports-Imports) [2009 (235) E.L.T. 304 (Tribunal)] had found an order of the Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Chennai demanding duty on photocopiers found to have been cleared by misdeclaring the assessable value to the customs and imposing penalties on the importer to be ab inito bad in law on the ground that the Show Cause Notice in that case had been issued without jurisdiction by the ADG, DGCEI, Chennai. Ld. Counsel claimed that the impugned order was also passed on adjudication of allegations contained in a Show Cause Notice issued by the Additional Director General, DGCEI, Chennai and that the ADG did not have jurisdiction to issue the Show Cause Notice. The impugned order was therefore not sustainable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indicate the territorial jurisdiction of ADG, DGCEI, Chennai. The Tribunal found the sustained the objection raised by the appellants. The Tribunal observed as follows :- This jurisdiction cannot be assumed; it should be conferred by the competent authority under the enabling provision of law. Any territorial jurisdiction to issue SCN to the appellants in respect of the subject imports made through Chennai Seaport was not conferred on the ADGCEI, Chennai Unit and, therefore, we have to sustain the jurisdictional objection raised by the appellants. Accordingly, the order impugned in the appeals before it was set aside as ab initio bad in law. 6. We find that the objection raised by the ld. Counsel on behalf of the appellants as regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
