P.C. JAIN Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is often said that the law acts ex-post facto. In the instant case, the legislature has acted in pursuance of what is perceived as undesirable - which is the right of a member/president/ vice- president of the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'CESTAT '.) to appear, act and/or plead on their demitting office before the very same Tribunal. The legislature has sought to debar all such like persons, by insertion of sub-section (6) to Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Custom Act.). The said provision was introduced by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 11.05.2007.

(2.) THE challenge to the miscellaneous order dated 09.07.2007 in writ petition no. 6712/2007 arises on account of the fact that the CESTAT had relieved the petitioner from appearing in the appeal filed by his client before CESTAT in view of the provisions of Section 129(6) of the Customs Act. Similarly, in writ petition No. 6710/2007, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.7.2007 and 26.07.2007 passed by two different benches of the CESTAT, whereby the petitioner was prevented from appearing for his client before CESTAT, again, on account of the bar incorporated in Section 129(6) of the Customs Act. In passing the order dated 26.07.2007, the CESTAT relied upon the order dated 09.07.2007 referred to hereinabove passed in the case of Madhya Pradesh Consultancy Organisation Ltd vs CCE, Bhopal being Service Tax Appeal No. 260 of 2007.

(3.) SINCE reliefs claimed by the petitioners are pivoted on the challenge laid to the provisions of Section 129(6) of the Customs Act and/or its applicability, for the sake of convenience, it would be relevant to extract the said section in its entirety. 129 Appellate Tribunal –