TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri B.G. Chidananda Urs, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Y. Hari Prasad, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : N. Kumar, J.]. - These two appeals are preferred by the two assessees, challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal, which has upheld the order of the Commissioner, who has passed the impugned order-in-original as an Adjudicating Authority. 2. The assessees exported goods under claim for draw back. The assessee in CSTA No. 4/2007 received a sum of Rs. 3,54,621/- as draw back, whereas the assessee in CSTA No. 5/2007 received an amount of Rs. 4,58,708/- as draw back. DRI investigations revealed that the assessees had not received the export proceeds within the period allowed. Therefore, show cause n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigate the dispute regarding duty draw back also and therefore, they held the question of jurisdiction in favour of the Revenue and against the assessees. They also held that there is absolutely no merit in the claim of the assessees is concerned and therefore on merits also, the appeals came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the assessees are before this Court in these two appeals. 3.Learned counsel for the assessees contends, though the Notification conferred powers by virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act to appoint the Director of Revenue Intelligence as the Commissioner of Customs and authorises him to investigate the matter by issuing show cause notice, that Notification cannot be read as conferring power on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication No. 19/1990 which is the cause for explanation by the Board in terms of Circular No. 4/1999. When the Notification No. 19/1990 stands superseded by Notification dated 7th March 2002, the explanation offered by the Board, explaining the said circular also vanishes. That apart, Section 5(2) of the Act confers power on the superior Customs Officers, unless they are prevented by express order by the Board, from discharging the functions of lower Customs Officers. Therefore, a reading of Section 4(1) read with Section 5(2) of the Act and the Notification issued confer not only the power to investigate and issue a show cause notice on the Director of Revenue Intelligence, bat also, confer powers to adjudicate the dispute regarding draw b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ack paid to the claimant and the exporter shall repay the amount so demanded within sixty days of the receipt of the said order. Section 4 of the Act deals with the appointment of Officers of Customs. Section 4(1) empowers the Board to appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be Officers of Customs. Sub-section (2) of the said Section provides, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-Section (1), the Board may authorize a Chief Commissioner of Customs or a Commissioner of Customs or a Joint or Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs to appoint Officers of Customs below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs. By virtue of the powers so conferred under sub-sections (1) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant Directors, of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence posted at Headquarters and Zonal/regional units. [Notification No. 17/2002-Cus. (N.T.), dated 7-3-2002] Therefore, the Director of Revenue Intelligence has been conferred with the power of the Commissioner of Customs. The power of such Officer to investigate and issue show cause notice calling upon the assessee to pay back the draw back is not disputed. What is disputed is the power of the said authority to adjudicate the dispute. Relying on the circular dated 15th February 1999, which is issued in pursuance of the Notification No. 19/90 conferring the similar power where it has been held, though they have been conferred the power to investigate and issue show cause notice, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex Court which has held that when a statute specifically states who should exercise the power, how power should be exercised and the same fashion is concerned, there is no quarrel with the legal proposition. Section 5(2) of the Act specifically provides that, a higher Officer of the Customs also has the power to perform functions and duties of a lower Officer. Therefore, a person appointed under Section 4(1) of the Act. by virtue of Section 5(2) of the Act, has the jurisdiction to exercise the power of a subordinate or a lower authority and therefore, the power exercised by the Director of Revenue Intelligence is as stipulated under the Act and therefore, be cannot be found fault with and therefore, he has the jurisdiction to adjudicate and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
