Back
CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
S.N. Jha, M. VEERAIYAN, JJ.
Navshakti Industries (P.) Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi -Respondent
Final Order No. 32/2008-Cus. Stay Order No. 25/2008-Cus. Application Nos. C/Stay/131/2008 & C/Misc./63/2008 Appeal No. C/29/2008, 32 of 2008, 25 of 2008, C/Stay/131 of 2008, C/Misc./63 of 2008, C/29 of 2008
Decided On : 20-02-2008
T.P.S. Kang,B.K. Singh
Per Justice S.N. Jha : This Appeal has come up for hearing along with the applications which have been filed for early hearing of the appeal and for stay. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned DR for some time, we are of the view that the appeal itself is not maintainable before this Tribunal and, therefore, it is not necessary to pass separate orders on the aforesaid applications.
2. This appeal arises from an order of the Commissioner of Customs dated 09.01.2008, on application of the appellant under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962. The said Section which was inserted by an amendment in 2006 (w.e.f. 14th July, 2006) provides for provisional release of goods etc. seized under Section 110, pending order of the adjudicating officer. The question is whether the appeal against such order is maintainable under Section 129-A before this Tribunal under the Customs Act. Section 129-A provides for appeal inter alia against a decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs "as an adjudicating authority". The order envisaged in Section 110-A cannot be treated to be an order in the nature of adjudication. As a matter of fact, as mentioned above, order in regard to the provisional release of goods etc. is to be passed "pending the order of the adjudicating officer" which clearly shows that the order of release or non-release cannot be deemed to be an order in the nature of adjudication.
3. As a matter of fact, we are not sure whether in the instant case the adjudication is to be made by Commissioner himself or by any subordinate officer. It may also be relevant to mention here that the said application before the Commissioner for release of the goods was filed in the light of the Order of the Delhi High Court dated 29.11.2007 in Writ Petition (C) No. 3813/2007. The appellant contends that the direction of the High Court was not carried out by the Commissioner, if that is so, it is open to the appellant to make grievance to that effect in the High Court. In the above premises, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
