Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 1718
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mr. Mohammad Rafiq and Mr. Goverdhan Bardhar, JJ.
Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Cce, Jaipur-i - Respondent
Customs Appeal No. 3 of 2017 with D. B. Customs Appeal No. 4 of 2017 with D. B. Customs Appeal No. 5 of 2017
Decided On : 11-09-2018
Mr. Prakul Khurana on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. Aditya Vijay and Mr. N.S. Bhati, Advocates, for the Respondent
Headnote:
Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 265 – Customs Act, 1962 – Section 130, 141, 157, 158, 45, 51 and 52 – Prohibition Act – Section 58A – Rules of 1966 – Rule 6 and 17 – General Financial Rules – Rules 112 and 113 – Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 – Regulation 3 – Civil suit – Service Tax – Alleged non-compliance – Commissioner of Income Tax pursuant – Appeals have been filed appellant Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited under section 130 of Customs Act, 1962 challenging common judgment passed by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi whereby appeals filed by appellant have been dismissed and adjudication orders passed by Commissioner of Customs and have been confirmed – Held, Learned counsel appellant that since respondent did not permit it to outsource service, therefore, operation of ICDs remained suspended for quite some time and it cannot be saddled with cost recovery charges is noted to be rejected – Respondent was not under legal obligation to allow appellant to outsource the work of ICD through a third party – Respondent was no where privy to the agreement between appellant and Petro Chemical and Shipping Limited. Even if the contract between the appellant and Petro Chemical and Shipping Limited was not finalized for quite some time, it would not absolve the appellant from its liability to run ICD in terms of its appointment as custodian under Section 45 of Act dispute arose between appellant and Petro Chemical and Shipping Limited, who approached this Court by filing writ petition and the process of handling and transportation has to be abandoned by the appellant – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Mohammad Rafiq, J. - Since the issues involved in all the aforesaid three appeals are same and they arise out of common judgment, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. These appeals have been filed by the appellant Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited under section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') challenging the common judgment dated 30.12.2016 passed by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the appeals filed by the appellant have been dismissed and adjudication orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs dated 06.11.2012, 01.03.2013 and 19.08.2013 have been confirmed.
3. The aforesaid appeals were admitted by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2017 on the following substantial questions of law:
In DB Custom Appeal No. 3/2017 :-
"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in confirming that the demand of Rs. 1,71,47,255/-along with interest as cost recovery charges raised by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax under the provisions of regulation 5(2) read with regulation 6(1)(o) of the HCCAR, 2009 was not without jurisdiction?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in confirming the demand of cost recovery charges raised by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax pursuant to the 6th Pay Commission.
(iii) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the ld. Commissioner of Customs on account of alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and the rules, regulation made thereunder.
(iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in confirming the order passed by the ld.
Commissioner of Customs pertaining to the suspension of the approval granted to the Appellant as custodian in respect of ICD-Bhiwadi?"
In DB Custom Appeal No. 4/2017:-
"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in confirming that the demand of Rs. 2,21,08,003/-along with interest as cost recovery charges raised by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax under the provisions of regulation 5(2) read with regulation 6(1)(o) of the HCCAR, 2009 was not without jurisdiction?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in confirming the demand of cost recovery charges raised by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax pursuant to the 6th Pay Commission.
(iii) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the ld. Commissioner of Customs on account of alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and the rules, regulation made thereunder.
(iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in not declaring the order dated 01.03.2013 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Customs to be non-est in the eyes of law being in violation of the principles of natural justice, Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa (i.e. no man can be judge in his own case)?"
In DB Custom Appeal No. 5/2017:-
"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in confirming that the demand of Rs. 1,01,03,833/-along with interest amounting to Rs. 2,39,741/- as cost recovery charges raised by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax under the provisions of regulation 5(2) read with regulation 6(1)(o) of the HCCAR, 2009 was not without jurisdiction?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in confirming the demand of cost recovery charges raised by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax purs
