Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (7) TMI 307

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Commissioner (Appeals) under Rule 11 of the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989." 3. Since it's a pure question of law, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have heard the matter at this stage itself. 4. Vide Finance Act, 1979; Foreign Travel Tax (FTT) was introduced by insertion of Chapter-V therein. Section 35 of the said Act is the charging Section and stipulates the amount of Travel Tax which the passengers as well as carriers are supposed to pay. Section 38 of the said Act provides for the penalties and reads as under :- "38. (1) Every passenger who embarks or attempts to embark on an international journey without paying the tax payable by him under this chapter shall, in addition to his liab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r : Provided that no order for imposing a penalty shall be passed by such authority unless the carrier or other person on whom the penalty is proposed to be imposed is given an opportunity of being heard in the matter by such authority." 5. Section 40 gives power to the Central Government to make Rules for carrying out the purpose of the said Chapter namely Chapter-5. In exercise of these powers, the Central Government has framed Inland Travel Tax Rules, 1989. Rule 9 thereof provides for adjudication of penalties in case there is a violation of the provisions of Chapter-5 of the Finance Act and the said Rules inter alia for non-payment or short payment of tax. The adjudication power is given to Assistant Collector of Customs. Rule 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Customs (Appeals) which was, however, dismissed on 29th April, 2008. Against this order, the respondent did not file any revision as provided in Rule 13 (ibid). Instead, the respondent preferred further appeal before the CESTAT. This appeal has been allowed by the CESTAT vide orders dated 6th November, 2008 [2009 (240) E.L.T. 735 (Tri. - Del.)]. It is in this backdrop, in the present appeal preferred by the appellant, it is contended that CESTAT had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as no such appeal is provided under the Rules. It is further contended that CESTAT was under the wrong motion that appeal is under the Customs Act, whereas, the action taken was not under the provision of Customs Act but Inland Air Travel Tax Rules read .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that : "...an inherent lack of jurisdiction may make a decree passed by that Court one without jurisdiction or void in law..." There is no natural or inherent right to file appeal and such a right is granted to the aggrieved parties by the statute. If there is no statutory appeal provided, the Tribunal which is the creation of the statute does not get jurisdiction to hear such an appeal." 9. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitri Bai Sopan Gujar - (1999) 3 SCC 722, the Court held : "It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. Being a substantive statutory right it has to be regulated in accordance with law in force at the re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ning Institute and Ors. v. P.J. Jose and Ors. [(2007)(1) Bom. CR 675] observed that : "....there can neither be an estoppel against a statute nor can jurisdiction upon the Tribunal be confirmed by consent." 11. Therefore, such misstatement in the said letter would not come to the rescue of the respondent. 12. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appeal preferred by the respondent before the CESTAT was not maintainable for want of any provision in the Rules and the order is unsustainable in law. It is accordingly set aside. At the same time, we find that the 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 Cu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates