9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 815 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction - power of DRI to issue SCN - Held that - the powers of officers working in these organizations to issue notice under Customs Act, 1962 as proper officers has been subject matter of decision by various High Courts - I set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the original authority to decide the question of jurisdiction first and thereafter on merit after the matter is settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the pending appeals by the Revenue against the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court 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 - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notice under Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The judgment deals with appeals against impugned orders resulting from proceedings initiated by the issue of Show Cause cum Demand Notice by officers of DRI/SIB/Commissioner of Customs(Prev.). The issue revolves around the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue notices under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted the differing opinions among various High Courts on this matter. The case references the decision in M/s.HR Electronics, M/s.Laxmi Radios v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi(I &G) where the Tribunal highlighted the conflicting opinions and the pendency of the issue before the Supreme Court. The Tribunal discussed the amendment of section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, post the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sayed Ali. The judgment highlighted the issuance of Notification No. 44/2011-Cus (NT) by CBEC, appointing Additional Director General, DRI as a proper officer from July 6, 2011, for the purpose of Section 28. Subsequently, sub-Section 11 was inserted under Section 28 with retrospective effect, assigning proper officer functions to DRI officers. The judgment also referred to conflicting decisions by various High Courts, leading the matter to the Supreme Court for adjudication. The Tribunal considered the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex Vs. Union of India, which held that neither DRI officers nor DGCEI officers could issue show cause notices for the period before 8.4.11. This decision favored the assessee against the Revenue. The judgment discussed conflicting decisions from the Mumbai High Court and the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, contrary to the Delhi High Court's stance. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which stayed the Delhi High Court's judgment. The Tribunal also referenced the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of BSNL Vs. UOI, which granted liberty to the petitioner to review the challenge based on the outcome of appeals filed by UOI in the Supreme Court against the judgment in the Mangali Impex case. In line with the Delhi High Court's decision in the BSNL case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to decide jurisdiction after the Supreme Court's decision in the Mangali Impex case, providing the assessee with a hearing opportunity. The status quo was to be maintained until a final decision was reached. In conclusion, the Tribunal followed the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in the BSNL case and remanded the matters back to the original authorities for a decision on jurisdiction and merit after the Supreme Court's resolution of pending appeals against the Delhi High Court's decision in the Mangali Impex case. The status quo was to be maintained during the interim period, and all impugned orders were set aside for further consideration.
|
