2018 (9) TMI 1154 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction power of DRI to issue SCN - Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - Following the order in Forech India 2017 (12) TMI 984 - DELHI HIGH COURT , this appeal is allowed in part and the CESTAT would independently apply its mind to the question of jurisdiction and also decide the appeal on merits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Competence and jurisdiction under the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Dichotomy of judicial opinion regarding the competence and jurisdiction under the amended Section 28.
3. Remand of issues for reconsideration by the concerned Commissioner.
4. Previous judgments influencing the decision-making process.
5. Pending consideration of issues before the Supreme Court.

Analysis:

1. Competence and jurisdiction under the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appeal in question raised concerns regarding the Revenue's grievance that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) remanded issues for reconsideration due to conflicting judicial opinions on the competence and jurisdiction under the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The dichotomy of opinions stemmed from differing views on the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence's (DRI) jurisdiction, as highlighted in judgments such as M/s. Mangli Impex Limited v. Union of India and Vipul Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors.

2. Dichotomy of judicial opinion:
The conflicting views on the jurisdiction under the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 led to the remand of issues for reconsideration by the concerned Commissioner. The previous judgments, particularly M/s. Mangli Impex Limited v. Union of India and Vipul Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors., highlighted the need for clarity on the competence and jurisdiction of the DRI in such matters.

3. Remand of issues for reconsideration:
The CESTAT's decision to remand the issues for reconsideration by the concerned Commissioner was influenced by the conflicting judicial opinions and the need for a comprehensive review in light of the previous judgments, including those stayed by the Supreme Court. This remand was aimed at ensuring a fair and just consideration of the jurisdictional aspects and imposition of penalties, if applicable.

4. Previous judgments influencing the decision-making process:
The judgments in M/s. Mangli Impex Limited v. Union of India and Vipul Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors. played a significant role in shaping the decision-making process in the present appeal. These judgments highlighted the need for a nuanced approach to jurisdictional issues and the imposition of penalties, emphasizing the importance of independent consideration by the concerned authorities.

5. Pending consideration of issues before the Supreme Court:
Given the pendency of similar issues before the Supreme Court, the High Court adopted a cautious approach in disposing of the appeal. The Court's decision aligned with a previous order in Forech India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, emphasizing the need for an independent assessment of jurisdictional matters and a thorough review of the appeal on its merits, including penalty considerations, without being influenced by previous judgments.