9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel for the applicant, Sri Gautam Chaudhary, learned counsel for the Regsitrar CESTAT, respondent no. 2, Sri Ashok Mehta, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 6. This is an intervernor's application filed under Order 1 Rule 8A read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association through its President. It is to be noted that pursuant to a decision of the Union Cabinet a Notification No. 7/2013 dated 1.11.2013 was issued for setting up the Benches of CESTAT at Allahabad, Chandigarh, Mumbai, New Delhi and Chennai. Since the aforesaid Notification was not being implem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962. Once this is done, we fail to understand as to how the Registrar of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi contend in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that the jurisdiction at Allahabad is yet to be notified under Section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962, which only gives the power to the Appellate Tribunal to regulate its own procedure. Once the Bench has been created and the place has been notified nothing further else is required to be done. It is admittedly, clear that the Registrar under the garb of some representation given by the Indirect Tax Bar Association is not allowing the functioning of the Bench at Allahabad for vested reasons. We, accordingly, direct the Registrar post ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification has been issued creating a Bench at Allahabad by carving out the jurisdiction from Delhi, as such the Registrar has no power to create any further jurisdiction apart from what has been created by the Gazettee Notification. A jurisdiction of the Bench can not, under any circumstances, be conferred merely upon the consent of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the relevant portion of the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Areva T & D India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Mumbai 2013 (296) ELT 453 (Mad.). Paragraph Nos. 22 and 23 are relevant, which are quoted here-in-below: "(22) Though Section 129C(6) gives power to regulate its own prcedure, the said provision does not exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
