Skip to content


Sayed Mohamad Macci Gulam Rasul Vs. Collector of Customs (P) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Reported in(1987)(10)LC707Tri(Mum.)bai
AppellantSayed Mohamad Macci Gulam Rasul
RespondentCollector of Customs (P)
Excerpt:
.....elt 2517 - sudesh rattan mahajan v. collector of customs & central excise, chandigarh] (b) the revision transferred to the tribunal pursuant to section 131-b of the act, had abated in consequence of the death of the revision petitioner and the failure of the successors in interest of the deceased to be impleaded as his legal representatives in his place in the revision application, assuming that the right to claim the refund of the money deposited towards a penalty in a quasi criminal proceeding could survive the death of the revision petitioner; (c) his vakalat had ceased in consequence of the death of the revision petitioner. he has no instructions in the matter and no knowledge of who the legal representatives are.3. in consequence of abatement, the revision application,.....
Judgment:
(a) Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear and decide what was, originally, a-Revision Petition before the Government of India, but transferred to the Tribunal, presumably pursue to Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act, for short) and; (b) abatement in consequence of the death of the Revision Petitioner (now Appellant) on or about 5-11-83 allegedly after deposit of Rs.10,000 only towards the penalty levied in adjudication.

2. Shri Siwani, Advocate with Smt. Gupta purporting to appear for the deceased Appellant, conceded that, (a) the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in terms of the proviso (c) to Section 131-B of the Act to hear and decide the matter. It is the Government of India that still continues to have the jurisdiction and the matter, accordingly, has to be re-transferred to the Government of India for disposal according to law. [1983 ELT 2517 - Sudesh Rattan Mahajan v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh] (b) the Revision transferred to the Tribunal pursuant to Section 131-B of the Act, had abated in consequence of the death of the Revision Petitioner and the failure of the Successors in interest of the deceased to be impleaded as his legal representatives in his place in the Revision Application, assuming that the right to claim the refund of the money deposited towards a penalty in a quasi criminal proceeding could survive the death of the Revision Petitioner; (c) his Vakalat had ceased in consequence of the death of the Revision Petitioner. He has no instructions in the matter and no knowledge of who the legal representatives are.

3. In consequence of abatement, the Revision Application, erroneously transferred to the Tribunal, has, of course, to be dismissed. But then, seeing that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter in terms of the proviso to Section 131-B of the Act, I, hereby, direct that the proceeding may be re-transferred to the Governement of India for disposal according to law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //