2018 (5) TMI 1569 - AT - Customs

Validity of SCN - case of appellant is that the learned Commissioner has already taken a view about the applicability of issue of jurisdiction, therefore, proceedings further in the matter would cause prejudice to their interest - Held that - the adjudicating authority has not expressed any view on sustainability of the show-cause notice, only he has allowed another opportunity to the appellant to appear before him on 15.3.2017 and prove their case on various issues including the issue related to jurisdiction raised/ which was not raised in the reply but raised subsequently through letter dated 13.2.2017 - there are no substance in the apprehension of the appellant that the learned Commissioner has already taken view on the issue of jurisdiction and the request made in the letter of the appellant has not been considered by the learned Commissioner. Any direction to stall the proceeding, before the adjudicating authority, by setting aside the communication to appear for personal hearing, would not be appropriate and contrary to justice as the learned adjudicating authority is well within its jurisdiction and exercised the power to complete the adjudication proceeding - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Early hearing of appeals, Jurisdiction to issue demand notice by DRI Officer, Maintainability of show-cause notice, Precedent on passing order on jurisdiction then on merit

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved applications seeking early hearing of appeals. The appellants requested to drop the show-cause notice citing a precedent set by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Commissioner directed the appellants to appear for a personal hearing, leading to the filing of the appeal. The Revenue argued that conflicting judgments on the issue of jurisdiction prevent outright rejection of the show-cause notice. The adjudicating authority had not expressed an opinion on the maintainability of the notice. The Revenue contended that passing an order first on jurisdiction before merit would set a bad precedent. The Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority had not taken a view on jurisdiction but allowed the appellants an opportunity to prove their case. The Tribunal noted judgments from other High Courts where the DRI officer was considered the proper officer for issuing notices before 2011. The Tribunal concluded that stalling the proceedings would be inappropriate, and the adjudicating authority had the jurisdiction to complete the adjudication process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the related application was disposed of.

This judgment addressed the issues of early hearing of appeals, the jurisdiction to issue a demand notice by the DRI Officer, the maintainability of the show-cause notice, and the precedent on passing an order on jurisdiction before merit. The Tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority had not made a decision on the jurisdiction issue but had allowed the appellants an opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal also considered past judgments from other High Courts regarding the role of the DRI officer in issuing notices. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the authority's right to continue the adjudication process and dismissed the appeal.