MANISH KUKREJA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUE makes an objection stating that when the goods came in baggage but not in cargo, the dispute relating to baggage shall not be subject to jurisdiction of Tribunal under first proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The jurisdiction lies to the Revisional authority for revision remedy. On the previous occasion, Revenue was directed to find out from the higher authority as to whether the case of present nature shall be a case of baggage dispute or not. But no instructions in this regard has come.

(2.) LD . Counsel of appellant submits that the jurisdiction lies with the Tribunal to decide the matter.

(3.) LD . Counsel at this stage states that if Tribunal has no jurisdiction, the appellant being under a bona fide belief that remedy against impugned order lies before Tribunal, delay made in the process, may be condoned. It may be stated that Tribunal has no power to compel an authority to act under its direction usurping power of that Authority unauthorisedly. Any direction in this regard will amount to unauthorised exercise of power and excessive exercise of jurisdiction not vested. Appellant may raise all legal pleadings before appropriate authority to consider his prayer if any made for condonation of delay if it seeks re -visional remedy.