9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 105 - HC - CustomsJurisdiction - power of DRI to issue SCN - grievance of appellant is that 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 M/S MANGALI IMPEX LTD., M/S PACE INTERNATIONAL AND OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT - HELD THAT - This Court is of the opinion that an identical approach is necessary in this case. Accordingly, following the order in FORECH INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS INLAND, CONTAINER DEPOT, TUGHLAKABAD, NEW DELHI 2017 (12) TMI 984 - DELHI HIGH COURT , this appeal is 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.
Issues:
1. Condoning delay in re-filing the appeal. 2. Competence and jurisdiction under the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Dichotomy of judicial opinion regarding the jurisdiction of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). 4. Previous judgments influencing the decision-making process. 5. Disposal of appeals based on the pending consideration before the Supreme Court. Condoning Delay in Re-filing the Appeal: The Court allowed the condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal for two separate applications, one with a delay of 728 days and the other with a delay of 3 days. The delays were condoned based on the reasons stated in the applications, and the applications were disposed of accordingly. Competence and Jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962: The main issue in the present appeal was regarding the competence and jurisdiction under the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) remanded the issues for reconsideration by the concerned Commissioner due to conflicting judicial opinions. The Court referred to previous judgments, including one involving a dichotomy of opinions regarding the jurisdiction of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The Court highlighted the need for an independent consideration of jurisdiction by the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits, including the imposition of penalties, without being influenced by previous judgments. Influence of Previous Judgments: The Court emphasized the importance of independently applying the mind to the question of jurisdiction and deciding the appeal on merits. Previous judgments, such as the one in Mangli Impex Limited v. Union of India, were considered but with the directive that the Tribunal should not be influenced by them. The Court followed a similar approach as in a previous order involving Forech India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, and allowed the appeal in part with specific directions for the Tribunal to proceed independently. Disposal of Appeals based on Pending Consideration before Supreme Court: Given that the issues were pending consideration before the Supreme Court, the Court disposed of the appeals in alignment with previous orders and directives. The Court directed the Tribunal to proceed with the matter only after issuing notice to the respondent, ensuring a fair and transparent process in line with legal procedures. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Delhi High Court, the legal reasoning behind the decisions made, and the directives provided for the future proceedings in the cases discussed.
|
