2018 (9) TMI 1946 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - power to issue SCN - Whether the CESTAT was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of M/S MANGALI IMPEX LTD., M/S PACE INTERNATIONAL AND OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT is decided? HELD THAT - The matter is remitted to the CESTAT which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeals without being influenced by the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex - Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of remanding the matter for adjudication by CESTAT.
2. Question of jurisdiction to be decided by the Tribunal.
3. Application of previous court order in similar circumstances.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolved around the justification of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in remanding the matter for adjudication to determine the jurisdiction. The appellants questioned the decision, seeking clarity on whether CESTAT was correct in remanding the matter before the Supreme Court's decision in a related case. The High Court examined the circumstances and previous rulings to address this issue.

2. The High Court referred to a previous order in a batch of appeals involving a similar issue (Commissioner of Customs vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.), where the Court had set aside the remand order and directed the Tribunal to decide the appeals on merits, including the question of jurisdiction. The Court clarified that the Tribunal should independently examine the jurisdiction issue without being influenced by previous judgments, emphasizing that no opinion was expressed on the merits or procedures to be followed by the Tribunal.

3. In line with the previous decision, the High Court in this case also set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to CESTAT. The Court directed CESTAT to proceed with examining and deciding the merits of the appeals independently, without being influenced by the previous judgment. Similar to the previous ruling, the Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits or procedures to be adopted by the Tribunal, thereby upholding consistency in approach in cases involving remand orders and jurisdictional issues.

In conclusion, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the remand order and directing CESTAT to proceed with deciding the appeals on their merits, including the jurisdictional question, independently and without influence from previous judgments. The Court's decision aimed to ensure a fair and unbiased examination of the issues at hand, maintaining consistency with previous rulings in similar circumstances.