Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 1058 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction - power of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue SCN - Held that - similar issue has come up before this Tribunal on many earlier occasions also. The Tribunal remanded the cases to the original adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act. Analysis: The appeal challenged an order dated 25/05/2011, where both sides agreed that the notice was issued by the Additional Commissioner (SIIB). The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been addressed in various cases. The appellant argued that the show cause notice issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) was not valid, citing a Delhi High Court judgment. The Department, however, supported the notice issued by DRI. The Tribunal considered the jurisdiction issue, referencing a Supreme Court decision and subsequent amendments to the Customs Act. A notification dated July 6, 2011, empowered the Additional Director General, DRI as the 'proper officer' for issuing demand notices under Section 28. Subsequently, a retrospective amendment was made assigning proper officer functions to various DRI officers. The Tribunal highlighted conflicting decisions from different High Courts on the issue, leading to the matter being sub-judice before the Supreme Court. It was noted that the Delhi High Court had granted liberty to review the challenge based on the Supreme Court's decision in a related case. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in another case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority to decide the jurisdiction issue post the Supreme Court's decision and then proceed on the merits, ensuring the appellant's right to be heard. The Tribunal, in line with its previous decisions, remanded the matter for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of resolving the jurisdiction issue after the Supreme Court's decision.
|