TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent was misled by none else but by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) who misguided the respondent by stating that appeal under Section 129(A) of the Customs Act could be preferred against his order before the CESTAT. Therefore, while granting opportunity to the respondent to prefer revision against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), we direct if such a revision if preferred within two months, the revision shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and shall be entertained on merits by the Central Government. - 1 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2010 - A.K. Sikri and Reva Khetrapal, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Mukesh Anand with Mohit Kumar, Advocates, for the Petitioner. S/Shri Kamal Nijhawan with Sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passengers so allowed to board the ship or aircraft. (3) Every carrier or other person who fails to pay the foreign travel tax to the credit of the Central Government under sub-section (2) of section 35 shall, in addition to the payment of such tax and the interest leviable theron, be liable to pay penalty which shall not be less than one-fifth but which may extend to three times of the amount of the tax not so paid to the credit of the Central Government. (4) Any rule made under this Chapter may provide that in case of breach thereof by the carrier or other person, he shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than five hundred rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, and where the breach is a continu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of being heard in the matter. If penalty order is passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, after adjudication, these Rules also provide for appeal. As per Rule 11, appeal lies to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Delhi. In addition, Central Government is given revisionary powers. It can act on its own motion on an application of any person aggrieved by any order passed under Rule 11 or Rule 12, annul or modify such orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or the Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be. This power is conferred upon by the Central Government by Rule 13 of the aforesaid Rules. 6. In the present case, the respondent was served with show cause notice dated 27th April, 2004 alleging therein th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 129(A) of the customs Act. It is, therefore, stated that the respondent went by the said statement contained in the covering letter of the Commissioner (Appeals) and preferred the appeal under Customs Act. It is further stated that when the appeal was heard by the Tribunal, no such plea of want of jurisdiction was taken by the appellant. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent may be right in his submission that the respondent took the step of filing of appeal influenced by the statement contained in covering letter which he received alongwith the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs. However, the fact remains that the CESTAT had no jurisdiction to hear the said appeal as no such appeal is provided under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d clearly be null and void in the eyes of law as also has been seen in the aforementioned cases. In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan - AIR 1954 SC 340, it was observed by the Court that, "a defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of the parties." Therefore, even the consent of the parties cannot cure the inherent lack of jurisdiction. For this reason, even if there was a misstatement in the covering letter of the Commissioner (Appeals), since there is no estoppel in law, the respondent may not be allowed to take the plea of estoppel against the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
