2018 (8) TMI 338 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - power of DRI to issue SCN - Revenue s grievance is that the CESTAT remanded the issues for reconsideration by the concerned Commissioner in view of the previous judgment of this Court in Mangli Impex Limited v. Union of India 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Held that - Following the order in Forech India 2017 (12) TMI 984 - DELHI HIGH COURT , this appeals are allowed and the CESTAT would independently apply its mind to the question of jurisdiction and also decide the appeal on merits, including the aspect of imposition of penalty if any - Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption applications in CUSAA cases
2. Delay applications in CUSAA cases
3. Competence and jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962

Exemption Applications in CUSAA Cases:
The High Court allowed the exemption applications in various CUSAA cases subject to all just exceptions. The applications were disposed of accordingly.

Delay Applications in CUSAA Cases:
The delay applications in CUSAA cases were allowed, and the delay in filing the accompanying appeals was condoned based on the reasons stated in the applications. The applications were disposed of accordingly.

Competence and Jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962:
In the appeals, the Revenue's grievance was related to the remand of issues by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) for reconsideration by the concerned Commissioner. This remand was due to a dichotomy of judicial opinion regarding the competence and jurisdiction under the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The issue arose from conflicting views on the jurisdiction of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) as highlighted in previous judgments. The High Court referred to a specific order in another case and directed the Tribunal to decide the appeals on merits, including the question of penalty and the right of DRI to issue show cause notices. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should independently apply its mind on the question of jurisdiction. Following this approach, the High Court allowed the appeals in part, directing CESTAT to independently assess jurisdiction and decide on the appeals' merits, including any penalties.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the exemption and delay applications in CUSAA cases, along with the significant issue of competence and jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, as discussed in the High Court's decision.