2023 (10) TMI 1352 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - power to issue SCN - HELD THAT - The first order passed on the proceedings of IDEA CELLULLAR LTD., INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT. LTD. GE T AND D INDIA LTD., S. KUSHALCHAND AND COMPANY, GLOBAL EXIM, JINESH T. VIKAM, CHANDRESH G. PATEL, VIJAY G. PATEL VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE MUMBAI ZONAL UNIT AND ORS. 2023 (6) TMI 1302 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , whereby this Court has noted that there is a Review Petition arising out of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT , which is pending before the Supreme Court. Also subsequent the amendment which was brought about by Finance Act 2022, was subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in the proceedings of Writ Petitions which are also pending. As and by way of ad-interim relief, the impugned order is stated, however with liberty to the respondents to make an application for vacating of the said order in the event the respondents are of the opinion that the same ought not to be continued and/or after the decision of the Supreme Court in the pending Review/Writ Petition in the case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the applicability of a decision by the Supreme Court in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, the impact of subsequent amendments brought about by the Finance Act 2022, and the pending review petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the said amendments.

Details of the judgment:

1. The petitions raised issues covered by the Supreme Court decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs. The Court admitted the petitions based on similar issues raised in previous proceedings and ordered that the interim relief would continue until final adjudication.

2. The Court noted that the principal issue was pending before the Supreme Court as per the order passed in Idea Cellular Ltd. case. The petition was admitted, and an ad-interim relief was granted, with liberty given to respondents to apply for vacating the order after the Supreme Court's decision.

3. The Court considered that the issues in the present proceedings were similar to those in Idea Cellular Ltd., Viral Kanubhai Mehta, and Irfan Hajiosman Nursumar cases. Similar orders were passed, granting ad-interim relief and allowing respondents to seek vacating of the order post the Supreme Court's decision.

4. All contentions of the parties were expressly kept open for further consideration.

Separate Judgment:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.