2018 (4) TMI 1628 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - power to issue SCN - Whether CESTAT was justified and correct in law in passing an order of remand to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after decision of the Supreme court in Civil Appeal preferred against the decision of Delhi High court in Mangli Impex Limited v. Union of India 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT ? Held that - The impugned order challenged in these appeals remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgement of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited v. Union of India is set aside - The appeals preferred before the Tribunal are restored to their original position. The Tribunal would decide the appeals on merits including the question of jurisdiction of the officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence who had issued show cause notices. The appeals preferred before the Tribunal are restored to their original position.

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in passing an order of remand.
- Validity of remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority.
- Interpretation of the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal against the decision of the Delhi High Court.
- Restoration of appeals to their original position before the Tribunal.
- Examination of the question of jurisdiction of the officer who issued show cause notices.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the issue of whether CESTAT was justified in remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority to decide the jurisdiction issue post the Supreme Court's decision in a prior case. The respondent sought to quash the impugned order and remand the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision without expressing any opinion on merits. The Court considered the counsel's reliance on past orders and set aside the impugned order, restoring the appeals to their original position before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was directed to decide the appeals on merits, including the jurisdiction question, independently of the Delhi High Court's previous decision. The Court clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the appeals or the procedural aspects for the Tribunal to follow.

The Court analyzed the jurisdictional issue concerning the officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence who issued show cause notices. The decision emphasized that the Tribunal should examine this issue without being influenced by the prior Delhi High Court judgment. The Court's response to the substantial question of law led to the disposal of the appeals in the specified terms, with no order as to costs. The judgment provided clarity on the restoration of the appeals and the need for an independent assessment of the jurisdiction question by the Tribunal, highlighting the importance of considering the issue without being swayed by past decisions.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment delved into the complex legal issues surrounding the remand of matters to the original adjudicating authority, the interpretation of past judgments, and the restoration of appeals before the Tribunal. By setting aside the impugned order and directing a fresh consideration of the appeals on merits, the Court ensured a fair examination of the jurisdictional matters, emphasizing the need for an unbiased review independent of prior decisions.