- (1.) REVENUE has preferred this appeal against the common order dated 5th April, 2005 passed by CESTAT in the Appeals and Applications which were filed before it. The Appeals were preferred against the common order in original dated 23rd March, 2005 of the Commissioner of central Customs (Preventive) in the matter arising out of the show cause notice dated 7th August, 2003. The appeals preferred were allowed, both as to objection as to jurisdiction as also on other points which are set out in para. 7 of the impugned order. It is Revenue which has preferred this Appeal.
(2.) ONE of the question of law which was urged before the learned CESTAT and which was framed, read as under: "a) Whether the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) was the proper officer having jurisdiction to seize the rig in the EEZ and whether he was competent to issue a show cause notice and adjudicate the same to demand duties on goods imported, assessed and cleared on assessment orders of the proper officer of Customs working in the Bombay Customs House. "
(3.) THE learned Tribunal after considering the various contentions held that the Commissioner (Preventive) had rejected the objections as to lack of jurisdiction on the ground of certain decisions of the Tribunal which held that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai and that of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai was concurrent and, therefore, whatever the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai could do could also be done by Commissioner of Customs (Preventive ). The learned Tribunal held that they do not accept this reasoning as the concurrent jurisdiction of customs (Preventive) and Commissioner of Customs (Imports) would be confined to areas of the Port of mumbai and districts of Maharashtra as notified, over which both the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) as well as the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) had jurisdiction. However, in respect of the designated locations in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), no such concurrent jurisdiction exists or has been conferred as seen from the notification issued under the Customs Act, 1962. The preliminary objection as to want of jurisdiction, therefore, was upheld. The other contentions were considered and disposed off. It is revenue who has approached this Court against the order of CESTAT.;