9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 664 - AT - CustomsRestoration of appeal - case of appellant is that the consultant who was earlier handling the appeal passed away and the appellant entrusted the work to the present counsel and vakalat was filed on 25.1.2017 - Held that - it is seen that the appellant has made out sufficient cause for restoration of the appeal - appeal restored to the file of Tribunal. Jurisdiction - power of DRI to issue SCN - Held that - the matter had come up before the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex vs. Union of India 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT , where the matter has been remanded for further reconsideration - following the same, present matter also placed on remand for reconsideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Restoration of appeal dismissed for default, Jurisdiction of DRI to issue show cause notice under Customs Act, Validity of show cause notice issued by DRI, Conflicting decisions of various High Courts, Stay granted by Supreme Court on conflicting judgments
In the present case, the appellant filed an application seeking restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for default. The appellant explained that their previous consultant handling the appeal had passed away, and due to difficulties in collecting the case papers, they missed the hearing resulting in the ex parte dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal found that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for restoration of the appeal and allowed the application. The show cause notice in the appeal was issued by the DRI, and the Tribunal noted that similar issues had been remanded in other appeals pending the judgment of the Supreme Court in a specific case. The Tribunal recalled and restored the appeal, emphasizing the need for remand due to the DRI's jurisdictional issue in issuing show cause notices under the Customs Act. Regarding the jurisdiction of the DRI to issue show cause notices, the Tribunal observed that the issue had been analyzed in various appeals. The appellant argued that the DRI was not competent to issue the show cause notice, citing a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal noted subsequent amendments to the Customs Act and notifications assigning proper officer functions to DRI officers. However, conflicting decisions from different High Courts on the issue led to uncertainty. The matter was subjudice before the Supreme Court, which had granted a stay on the conflicting judgments, indicating the need for clarity on the jurisdictional issue. The Tribunal referred to a recent judgment by the Delhi High Court on a similar issue involving a notice issued by the DRI. The High Court had considered the stay granted by the Supreme Court on a related case and granted liberty to the petitioner pending the outcome of appeals in the Supreme Court. Following the Delhi High Court's decision and considering the totality of facts, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. The authority was directed to decide the jurisdiction issue after the Supreme Court's decision in a specific case and provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard, maintaining the status quo until a final decision was reached. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after the Supreme Court's judgment, emphasizing the importance of clarity on the DRI's jurisdictional issue in issuing show cause notices under the Customs Act. The conflicting decisions of various High Courts and the stay granted by the Supreme Court highlighted the need for a definitive resolution to the jurisdictional uncertainty.
|
