9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 778 - HC - CustomsValidity of remanding the case, when jurisdictional High Court Judgments are available, upholding the competency of the DRI to issue show cause notice - Whether Tribunal is empowered to remand the case without deciding the issues raised therein on the ground that jurisdiction of the officer to issue show cause notice is under dispute? - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS SHRI SANKET PRAFUL TOLIA 2021 (6) TMI 432 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that appeals are restored to the file of the Tribunal with a direction to keep the appeals pending and await the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court. Following the latest decision in Sanket Praful Tolia 's case, which is squarely covered by the issues involved herein, all these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed by setting aside the orders impugned herein and the matters are remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to keep the same pending and await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appeals filed against the decision in Mangali Impex 2016 (8) TMI 1181 - SC ORDER . However, it is made clear that the appellants shall not initiate any coercive action against the respondent(s)/assessee(s) and await the final decision in the appeals, which have been restored to the file of the Tribunal.
Issues involved:
Appeals against CESTAT orders on jurisdiction of DRI officials to issue show cause notices under Customs Act 1962. Analysis: 1. Common substantial questions of law raised: The key issues revolve around the competency of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officials to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act 1962. The respondents challenged the jurisdiction of DRI officials, claiming they were not designated as proper officers under the Act during the relevant period. The appeals questioned the correctness of CESTAT's decision to remand the cases instead of deciding the jurisdictional issues raised. 2. CESTAT's decision and reasoning: CESTAT allowed the appeals filed by the respondents, remanding the matters to the original authority. The Tribunal considered the jurisdictional issue regarding DRI officers' authority to issue notices under the Customs Act. It noted the conflicting decisions of various High Courts on this matter. CESTAT referred to legislative amendments and notifications assigning proper officer functions to DRI officers, but acknowledged the ongoing legal dispute. Ultimately, CESTAT decided to remand the cases to the adjudicating authority for a decision on jurisdiction after the Supreme Court's ruling in a related case. 3. High Court's previous decisions: The High Court cited previous cases where similar issues were addressed. In one instance, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to maintain status quo pending the Supreme Court's ruling. In another case, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed the matters to be kept pending until the Supreme Court's decision. These decisions influenced the High Court's approach in the present case. 4. High Court's ruling: Following a recent decision in a similar case, the High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the CESTAT orders and remanding the matters to the Tribunal. The Court directed the Tribunal to keep the cases pending and await the Supreme Court's decision in the related case. The High Court emphasized that no coercive action should be taken against the respondents during this period. The substantial questions of law were left open for further consideration, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of this ruling.
|
