HARPREET INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases have come before us in view of Misc. Order No. 261/2000 passed by the South Zonal Bench at Chennai. The circumstances which led to that order are as follows : Aggrieved by Order -in -Original No. 6/99, dated 28 -4 -1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar M/s. Harpreet International and Shri Maninder Singh preferred appeals C/281 and 282/99 before Delhi Bench of this Tribunal. These appeals come up before Northern Bench on 9 -3 -2000 for hearing. Stay petitions had also been posted. That Bench found that the facts in the case are similar to those in appeals pending before South Zonal Bench in relation to import Of identical goods by M/s. Pearl Associates, Pondicherry. Consequently the Bench took the view that these two appeals are to be heard by South Zonal Bench at Chennai in the interest of justice. Learned Counsel representing the appellant also submitted before the Bench that the two cases may be transferred to South Zonal Bench at Chennai to be heard along with the appeals preferred by M/s. Pearl Associates. In these circumstances, the Bench directed the registry to do the needful for sending these appeals to the South Zonal Bench at Chennai. When appeals reached the South Zonal Bench at Chennai, that Bench found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals in the absence of an order from the President transferring the case to South Zonal Bench. In this view of the matter, the South Zonal Bench remitted the file to the President for further orders on jurisdiction in the matter. When the matter came back, the President ordered the cases to be posted before a Larger Bench. That is how the matter has now come before us.

(2.) CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, inter alia, deals with constitution of benches. It provides for 4 Zonal Benches. Those Zonal Benches are to deal with all matters arising within their jurisdiction and such other matters as may be transferred to them under a general or special order of the President. As far as appeals C/281 -282/99 are concerned, order impugned therein was passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar. Importer, namely, appellants are located at Amritsar, falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Tribunal at Delhi. Appeals were therefore rightly filed before the Delhi Bench. When appeals were so filed before Delhi Bench which has territorial jurisdiction to entertain them the same was found by Northern Bench to be heard along with the matter pending in South Zonal Bench. The Northern Bench should have placed the matter before the President for specific orders transferring the case to South Zonal Bench. In the instant case such a procedure was not resorted to by the Northern Bench. Bench only directed the Registry to do the needful. Had the Bench directed the Registry to place the records before the President for appropriate orders the difficulty would not have arisen. In the absence of such a direction to the Registry, Registry followed the order of the Northern Bench which reads -

(3.) ON the issue regarding jurisdiction of benches to hear matters, we think it appropriate to refer to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd. -1990 (49) E.L.T. 322 (S.C.) -