2018 (1) TMI 382 - AT - Customs

Appellate Jurisdiction - Held that - It may be stated that when an appeal is admitted, order or judgment of lower court is in jeopardy and judgment of Apex Court shall bring the matter to finality as has been held by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. West Coast Paper Ltd. 2004 (2) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Therefore, as a rule of consistency, this matter may also go back to the adjudicating authority for appropriate decision on the basis of outcome of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mangali Impex 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Lack of jurisdiction due to notices issued by DRI Officer, conflicting decisions by different High Courts, consideration of Apex Court's decision, remanding matters for appropriate order based on Apex Court judgment.

1. Lack of Jurisdiction:
The appellant argued that the adjudication order lacked jurisdiction as notices were issued by a DRI Officer without proper authority. Reference was made to the decision in the case of Mangali Impex vs. Union of India by the High Court of Delhi. However, it was noted that the Revenue had challenged this decision in the Apex Court, which had stayed the High Court's decision. Various Tribunal Benches, including the Principal Bench, had remanded similar jurisdiction issues to the original authority pending the outcome of the Apex Court judgment.

2. Conflicting High Court Decisions:
The Revenue acknowledged the jurisdiction issue but pointed out conflicting decisions by different High Courts. Specifically, the High Court of Bombay in the case of Sunil Gupta vs. Union of India and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vuppalamritha Magnetic Components Ltd. vs. DRI had held contrary to the earlier decision. The learned DR highlighted that the Apex Court had affirmed the High Court of Bombay's decision, although the Special Leave Petition was dismissed before permission to appeal was granted. Despite the conflicting decisions, the Tribunal decided to wait for the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mangali Impex before making a decision.

3. Consideration of Apex Court's Decision:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of waiting for the Apex Court's judgment for consistency and finality. Citing the case of Union of India vs. West Coast Paper Ltd., it was noted that once an appeal is admitted, the lower court's judgment is in jeopardy, and the Apex Court's decision would bring finality to the matter. Therefore, in line with this principle, the Tribunal decided to remand the appeals to the adjudicating authority for a decision based on the outcome of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mangali Impex.

4. Remanding for Fresh Adjudication:
Since the Tribunal had not addressed the merits of the case, it was decided that upon the outcome of the Apex Court decision, the appellant would be given a reasonable opportunity to present arguments on both facts and law before the adjudicating authority. The authority, after recording pleadings and evidence, would then pass a reasoned and speaking order. Consequently, the appeals were remanded to the adjudicating authority for further proceedings.