2019 (8) TMI 1919 - HC - Customs

Whether the CESTAT was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the Primary Adjudicating Official, to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after awaiting final decision by the Supreme Court in the appeal (by Special Leave) against Mangli Impex Limited Vs. Union of India 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT ? HELD THAT - This Court is of the opinion that in larger interest of speedier resolution of the issues- rather than only deciding the question of jurisdiction, it would be appropriate that CESTAT should decide the merits of the appeals, i.e. the merits of the claims against the assessees, rather than remitting the matter for fresh overall consideration of the issues to each Adjudicating Authority. In the latter event, much time and energy will be spent, and avoidable delay would occur. However, on the other hand, if matters are remitted to the CESTAT for decision on merits, there would be a fair likelihood that many of them are resolved in favour of the assessees, in which event the way of further appeals and recourse to appellate proceedings by Revenue would be open. In these circumstances, the view in Davinder Singh 2018 (9) TMI 1946 - DELHI HIGH COURT commends acceptance. This Court is of the opinion that the view in other cases are not really precedential, but suggestive of our kind of approach, which in any event cannot be termed final, since the basic question regarding jurisdiction remains unresolved and would attain finality in the light of the Supreme Court s decision. All the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeals - Appeal disposed off by way of remand.

2024 (12) TMI 1370 - AT

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions presented and considered in this judgment are:

Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the Primary Adjudicating Official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, pending the final decision by the Supreme Court in the appeal against Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India.
How should the courts address the issue of jurisdiction in light of conflicting decisions from different High Courts regarding the authority of officers from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to issue show cause notices?
What procedural steps should be followed by the CESTAT in adjudicating the merits of the appeals while the jurisdictional question remains unresolved?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Justification of CESTAT's Remand for Jurisdictional Adjudication

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India serves as a pivotal precedent. The Rajasthan and Karnataka High Courts have previously remitted matters for fresh consideration by the Adjudicating Authority to assess jurisdiction, aligning with the Mangli Impex decision.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted the pending Supreme Court decision in Mangli Impex and acknowledged the differing views across High Courts. It emphasized the need for a consistent approach pending the Supreme Court's final ruling.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court considered the procedural history and the conflicting decisions from the Delhi High Court, particularly in Madhav Sikka and Davinder Singh, which provided a basis for its reasoning.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principles from Mangli Impex and the subsequent High Court decisions to determine that a remand to CESTAT for a decision on merits, without being influenced by Mangli Impex, was appropriate.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court balanced the need for jurisdictional clarity with the practical considerations of adjudicating the merits of the appeals, ultimately favoring a resolution on merits to avoid unnecessary delays.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the CESTAT should decide the merits of the appeals, with the jurisdictional question to be resolved following the Supreme Court's decision in Mangli Impex.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "This Court is of the opinion that in larger interest of speedier resolution of the issues... it would be appropriate that CESTAT should decide the merits of the appeals, i.e., the merits of the claims against the assessees, rather than remitting the matter for fresh overall consideration of the issues to each Adjudicating Authority."
Core Principles Established: The judgment establishes the principle that while jurisdictional issues are significant, they should not unduly delay the adjudication of merits, especially when a higher court's decision is pending.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters to the CESTAT for a decision on the merits, without influence from the Mangli Impex decision. It also stipulated that no coercive actions or prosecutions should be initiated against the assessees until the Supreme Court's final decision in Mangli Impex.

← Previous Next →