TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 81 of 2016 and WMP No. 14411 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2017 - Rajiv Shakdher, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. T. Chezhiyan For the Respondents : Mr. T. Pramod Kumar Chopda, Standing Counsel ORDER 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.01.2016, passed by the Government of India (in short GOI ), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. 1.1. The impugned order has been passed by the GOI, via its Joint Secretary, in exercise of power under Section 129 DD of the Customs Tax Act, 1962 (in short the Act ). 2. The brief facts, which are required to be noticed for disposal of the writ petition, are as follows : 2.1. The order-in-original dated 20.04.2015, was passed, whereby, the petitioner was giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty in the sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- was also imposed on the petitioner, under Section 112 of the Act. 3. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has preferred the captioned writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the impugned order has been passed by an Officer, who was not vested with the jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate upon the matter. The reason, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, which propels the petitioner to take such a stand is the fact that the Officer, who exercised the jurisdiction in the matter was of the same rank, as that of the Commissioner of Appeals, whose order was assailed before him. 4.1. To be noted, the impugned order has been passed by the Joint Secretary to the GOI. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Joint Secretary to Government of India who was also Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. Thus, the order-in-appeal as well as revisionary order had been passed by the officers of the same rank which is not permissible as per law. Adverting to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, it may be noticed that the said decisions were based on individual fact situation involved therein. Thus, the respondent cannot derive any advantage from the said pronouncements. 8. It is not in dispute before me that the Commissioner of Appeals and the Joint Secretary of the GOI, who exercised the power of the revisional authority, hold the same rank. 9. Having regard to the observations made in NVR Forging&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
