2018 (12) TMI 1433 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - power to issue SCN - Whether CESTAT was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT is decided? Held that - The impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeals without being influenced by the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against a reported judgment?

Analysis:
The appellants questioned the justification of CESTAT in remanding the matter for adjudication regarding jurisdiction pending the appeal in the Supreme Court against a reported judgment. The Court referred to a previous order in a batch of appeals involving similar circumstances. In that order, the Court set aside the impugned order and restored the appeals to their original position. The Tribunal was directed to decide the appeals on merits, including the question of jurisdiction, without being influenced by the previous decision of the Delhi High Court. The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the appeals or the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal.

The Court's decision in the previous batch of appeals was followed in the current case. The impugned order was set aside, and the matters were remitted to CESTAT. CESTAT was instructed to proceed with examining and deciding the merits of the appeals without being influenced by the previous decision of the Court. Similar to the previous cases, the Court did not express any opinion on the merits or the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal. The appeals were partly allowed in the above terms.

In conclusion, the Court found that CESTAT was not justified in remanding the matter for adjudication regarding jurisdiction pending the appeal in the Supreme Court. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed CESTAT to decide the appeals on merits, including the jurisdiction issue, without being influenced by the previous decision of the Court. The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the appeals or the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal.