By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, APRIL 20, 2018: IN this case, consequent upon the order of the original authority, appeal was filed by the Assistant Commissioner seeking imposition of penalty under rule 15 of CCR, 2004, the revocation of option of reduced penalty, confiscation of goods and for imposition of penalty on M/s Devkinandan J Gupta . Incidentally, the original authority had also imposed a penalty of Rs.1 lakh on Champshi Shah but that in any case was not the subject matter of the Revenue appeal before the Commissioner(A).

Be that as it may, it appears that the Commissioner(A) had upheld the order-in-original.

Now, Champshi Shah is in appeal before the CESTAT against this order-in-appeal.

None appeared for the appellant on the hearing date.

The Bench noted that although penalty was imposed on the appellant by the original authority for his role in transacting with M/s Devkinandan J Gupta to avail CENVAT credit by recourse to fraudulent invoices, no appeal had been filed by the appellant before the first appellate authority; neither was he a respondent therein.

Therefore, the CESTAT observed thus –

++ For the Tribunal to be conferred with jurisdiction, there must be an order passed either by the Commissioner, as original authority, or by Commissioner (Appeals) against an order of a lower authority.

++ In the present instance, the order impugned is that of the first appellate authority and that authority is conferred the jurisdiction only to the extent of appeals filed before it. The first appellate authority, therefore, had no jurisdiction in the matter of penalty imposed on Shri Champshi Shah .

++ Mere reiteration of the order of penalty imposed by the original authority, who had jurisdiction, by the first appellate authority, who lacked jurisdiction, does not cause grievance to the appellant at that stage.

The appeal was dismissed as being without merits.

(See 2018-TIOL-1259-CESTAT-MUM)