Page 252 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

234 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

judicial order - Power of judicial review in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under
Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India is altogether different and cannot be
compared with a statutory right of appeal where the scope of interference is larger. [2005
(5) SCC 685 relied on]. [paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]
Appellate Tribunal - Larger Bench - Constitution of - President of Tri-
bunal’s administrative action considering circumstances of case as to how
many members should constitute Larger Bench - Contention raised regarding
constitution of five Member Bench instead of three Members Bench not sus-
tainable - Section 129C(5) of Customs Act, 1962. [1990 (49) E.L.T. 322 (S.C.) relied
on]. [paras 5, 6, 7, 8]
Appeal dismissed

CASES CITED
Akanksha Syntax Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2013 (289) E.L.T. 186 (Tribunal) — Referred . [Paras 2, 4]
Candex Chemical Fibres Company (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2014 (310) E.L.T. 500 (Del.) — Referred .................................................................................. [Para 16]
Gentleman Suitings Private Limited — 2012 (12) TMI 1001 — Referred ......................................... [Para 16]
Gurdeep Kaur v. Commissioner — 2015 (325) E.L.T. 490 (Del.) — Referred .................................. [Para 16]
Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare — 2005 (5) SCC 685 — Relied on ..... [Para 13]
Raj Kumar v. CIT — 2007 (2) SCC 181 — Referred .............................................................................. [Para 12]
Shivmahal Textiles Private Limited — CWP No. 4946 of 2012,
decided on 18-12-2012 by Rajasthan High Court — Referred ................................................. [Para 16]
Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P) Limited — 1990 (49) E.L.T. 322 (S.C.) — Relied on ............ [Para 6]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Sharan Sethi, Advocate, for the Appellant.
[Order per : Raiesh Bindal, J.]. - The Revenue is in appeal against the
order passed by the Five Member Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), arising
out of Appeal Nos. C/53878/2014-CU(DB) and C/53901/2014-CU(DB), raising
following substantial questions of law :-
“(i) Whether an appeal lies before CESTAT against the order passed by
the Commissioner (Customs) under Section 110A of the Customs
Act, 1962 for provisional release of the goods or not?
(ii) Whether the reference of CESTAT’s Larger Bench of 5 Members is
legally maintainable on the basis of grounds summarized?
(iii) Whether the Akanksha Larger Bench decision of the CESTAT dated
9-10-2012 being based upon the correct legal position requires any
interference?
(iv) Whether the Larger Bench of 5 Members may like to answer the ref-
erence made to it to the effect that an appeal against a decision or
order passed by Commissioner of Customs for provisional release
of seized goods documents, etc., made under Section 110A of the
Customs Act, 1962 lie before the CESTAT under Section 129(1)(a) of
the Customs Act, 1962?”
2. The appeals were preferred before the Tribunal against the order
passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Rohtak, directing
provisional release of goods in exercise of powers under Section 110A of Cus-
toms Act, 1962 (for short, ‘the Customs Act’). Two Member Bench of the Tribunal
while disagreeing with earlier order passed in Akanksha Syntax Private Limited v.
CC (General), Mumbai - 2013 (289) E.L.T. 186 (Tri. - Mumbai), wherein it was
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  252