9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 636 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction - power of Additional Director, D.R.I. to issue SCN - amendment introduced in Section 28 (11) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The proceedings are initiated from the show cause notice dated 25.02.2011 issued by D.R.I. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT has held that D.R.I officer is not proper officer within the meaning of Section 28 (4) read with Section 2 (34) of the Customs Act, 1962. Though the Revenue has filed a review application against the said judgement, it is noted that as per the recent decision of the Hon ble Apex court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA VERSUS M/S. AGARWAL METALS AND ALLOYS 2021 (9) TMI 316 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon ble Apex Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the department following the decision in the case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd. The demand raised cannot sustain as show cause notice is vitiated being without jurisdiction to issue the same. Proceedings imposing penalty cannot sustain as the SCN is issued without jurisdiction - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Jurisdiction of D.R.I to issue show cause notice, Validity of show cause notice, Applicability of recent Supreme Court judgments
Jurisdiction of D.R.I to issue show cause notice: The appellant argued that the show cause notice issued by the Additional Director of D.R.I. was prior to the amendment in Section 28(11) of the Customs Act, 1962. The counsel contended that D.R.I. does not have the authority to issue show cause notices, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs. The appellant also referred to the dismissal of appeals by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Agarwal Metals and Alloys, which affirmed the lack of jurisdiction of D.R.I. officers to issue show cause notices. The Tribunal concurred with this view, holding that the demand raised and penalties imposed based on the show cause notice issued by D.R.I. were not sustainable due to lack of jurisdiction. Validity of show cause notice: The show cause notice in question was dated 25.02.2011 and was issued by the D.R.I. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had previously ruled that D.R.I. officers are not proper officers under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite a review application filed by the Revenue against this judgment, the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Agarwal Metals and Alloys reiterated the lack of authority of D.R.I. officers to issue show cause notices. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the show cause notice in the present case was vitiated due to lack of jurisdiction, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. Applicability of recent Supreme Court judgments: The Tribunal extensively referred to recent judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs and Agarwal Metals and Alloys, to establish the lack of jurisdiction of D.R.I. officers in issuing show cause notices. The Tribunal emphasized that the dismissal of appeals by the Hon'ble Apex Court based on these judgments signified the consistent stance on the issue. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal was in line with the principles established in these recent Supreme Court judgments, highlighting the importance of adherence to legal provisions and proper jurisdiction in customs matters. This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the key issues addressed by the Tribunal regarding the jurisdiction of D.R.I. to issue show cause notices, the validity of the notice in question, and the significance of recent Supreme Court judgments in determining the outcome of the appeal.
|
