9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1995 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction - power to issue SCN - officers of DRI are proper officer to issue SCN or not - HELD THAT - The fact of the case regarding the issue of show-cause notices and adjudications are linked to preliminary objection with reference to jurisdiction to initiate proceedings, is admitted. As regards the objection of the Revenue, to list the appeals again for some other day, it is noted that in the face of the admitted facts as above, and the issue involved is one of preliminary legal point of issue, we note the appeal themselves can be disposed of, as there could be no submissions on merits of the case, from either side. In view of the admitted position and pending legal dispute before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is found that all these appeals are to be allowed by way of remand by setting aside the impugned orders. Reliance can be placed in the case of ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD. VERSUS CC, NEW DELHI 2017 (8) TMI 1639 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that It has been ruled by Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT that the D.R.I. Officers are not competent to issue the show cause notice for the period prior to 08.04.2011. In similar such cases, various Benches of the Tribunal such as, Delhi, Chennai Calcutta have set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the original authority for deciding the issue of jurisdiction and thereafter to decide on the merits of the case, upon pronouncement of the judgment by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangali Impex. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved:
1. Lack of jurisdiction of officers of DRI to initiate proceedings under Customs Act, 1962. 2. Legal validity of impugned orders dated 20.05.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Seaport Import), Chennai. 3. Transfer of appeals to Chennai Bench as per directions of Hon'ble President, CESTAT, New Delhi. 4. Disposal of stay applications filed along with appeals. 5. Adjudication of appeals against six different impugned orders. Issue 1: Lack of jurisdiction of officers of DRI to initiate proceedings under Customs Act, 1962: The appeals were filed against impugned orders dated 20.05.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport Import), Chennai. The counsels for the appellants raised a preliminary objection regarding the legality of the proceedings due to the lack of jurisdiction for the officers of DRI who were not designated as proper officers under the Customs Act, 1962 during the relevant time. They referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and various Tribunal decisions remanding similar cases back to the original authority to await the final resolution of the jurisdiction issue pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal found that the issue was a relevant legal point and decided to allow the appeals by way of remand, setting aside the impugned orders and sending the matters back to the original authority for further adjudication. Issue 2: Legal validity of impugned orders dated 20.05.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Seaport Import), Chennai: The appeals were listed for disposal of stay applications filed along with the appeals against six different impugned orders dated 20.05.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport Import), Chennai. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and perusing the records, found that the appeals could be disposed of due to the admitted facts and the legal dispute pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the jurisdiction issue. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed all the appeals by way of remand, setting aside the impugned orders and directing the matters to be decided by the original authority. Issue 3: Transfer of appeals to Chennai Bench as per directions of Hon'ble President, CESTAT, New Delhi: The appeals that were pending in different Benches were transferred to the Chennai Bench as per the directions of the Hon'ble President, CESTAT, New Delhi. The appeals were listed for disposal of stay applications filed along with the appeals, except for one appeal. The Tribunal acknowledged the transfer and proceeded to hear the appeals based on the issues raised by the parties regarding jurisdiction and legal validity of the impugned orders. Issue 4: Disposal of stay applications filed along with appeals: The appeals were listed for disposal of stay applications filed along with the appeals, except for one appeal. The counsels for the appellants raised a preliminary objection regarding the lack of jurisdiction of officers of DRI to initiate proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal considered this objection and decided to allow the appeals by way of remand, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matters back to the original authority for further adjudication. Issue 5: Adjudication of appeals against six different impugned orders: The appeals were filed against six different impugned orders dated 20.05.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport Import), Chennai. The Tribunal heard both sides, considered the preliminary objection raised regarding jurisdiction, and decided to allow all the appeals by way of remand. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and directed the matters to be decided by the original authority after the availability of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision on the jurisdiction issue. The stay applications filed along with the appeals were also disposed of accordingly. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeals by way of remand based on the jurisdiction issue and legal validity of the impugned orders.
|
