2019 (2) TMI 219 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - power of issue SCN - Remand of the case 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 - 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 - The respondent/assessee s right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex are kept intact - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Question of remanding the matter for adjudication to decide the issue of jurisdiction.
2. Comparison with a previous order in similar circumstances.
3. Setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matters to the CESTAT.
4. Directions for the CESTAT to examine and decide the merits of the appeals.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in the appeals was whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to decide the issue of jurisdiction. The appellants questioned this decision, especially in light of a pending appeal in the Supreme Court against a reported judgment. The Court considered this question raised by the appellants.

2. The respondents were represented by Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Advocate. The appellants' counsel highlighted a previous order by the Court in a batch of appeals, Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., where a similar issue was addressed. In that case, the Court had set aside the impugned order and directed the Tribunal to decide the appeals on merits without being influenced by a previous judgment.

3. In this judgment, the Court followed the precedent set in the earlier case and set aside the impugned order. The matters were remitted to the CESTAT for further examination and decision on the merits of the appeals. The Court ensured that the respondent/assessee's right to challenge the legality of the show cause notice remained intact. The Tribunal was directed to hear the parties on the merits of the case and the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, and to record separate findings.

4. The Court directed the CESTAT to issue reasonable notice to the assessees for the appeal hearing. The appeals were partly allowed in the above terms, emphasizing that the findings on lack of jurisdiction, if any, would be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits or procedures to be followed by the Tribunal, maintaining a neutral stance on those aspects.