Back
2013 Supreme(Cal) 54
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, Asim Kumar Mondal, JJ.
O. T. A. Falloons Forwarders (P) Limited - Appellant
Versus
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and Ors. - Respondents
F. M. A. T. No. 2668 of 2007
Decided on : February 4, 2013
Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty and Swarup Kumar Ghosh ...for the Appellant
Mr. Syama Prasanna Roy Chowdhury ...Amicus Curiae
Interpretation of procedural rules for hearing appeals under the Customs Act, 1962
Headnote:
Appeal - Customs Act, 1962 - Interpretation of procedural rules for hearing appeals under the Customs Act, 1962
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Eastern Zonal Bench, arguing that the appeal should not be necessary under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Finding of the Court:
The court, with the assistance of an amicus curiae, interpreted the procedural rules and held that the appeal must be placed for hearing under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: Interpretation of procedural rules for hearing appeals under the Customs Act, 1962
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Rule 17 of Chapter V of the Appellate Side Rules and the exemption of hearing appeals under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Final Decision: The court overruled the appellant's contention and directed the appeal to be placed for hearing under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Mukherjee, J. : This is an appeal against order elated June 25, 2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Eastern Zonal Bench, Customs Appeal No. 152 of 2006.
2. Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, submits that since under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, hearing under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code of this appeal is not necessary.
3. We requested Mr. Syama Prasanna Roy Chowdhury, learned senior Advocate, to assist the Court as amicus curiae. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, according to the best tradition of the Bar, readily accepted the request.
4. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned senior Advocate, appearing as amicus curiae, draws our attention to Rule 17 of Chapter V of the Appellate Side Rules and submits that the appeal must be placed for hearing under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. We accept the contention of Mr. Roy Chowdhury that only in respect of the appeals referred to in sub-rule (a) of Rule 17 of the said Rules, it is not necessary that those appeals be placed for hearing under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, all other appeals are to be placed for hearing under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
6. This is an appeal under the Customs Act, 1962. This appeal must be placed for hearing under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as hearing under Order XLI, Rule 11 is not exempted in respect of these appeals.
7. We, thus, hold, overruling the contention of Mr. Chakraborty, that the appeal should be placed for hearing under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
8. Put up the appeal for hearing under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on Thursday next.
Before we part with we record our sincere appreciation for Mr. Roy Chowdhury's valuable assistance.
Mondal, J.: I agree.
