2018 (7) TMI 2368 - HC - Customs

Competence and jurisdiction under the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - This Court is of the opinion that an identical approach is necessary in these cases. Accordingly following the order in Forech India 2017 (12) TMI 984 - DELHI HIGH COURT these appeals are allowed partly 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.

Summary

In the case before the Delhi High Court, the Revenue's appeal concerns the remand of issues by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) for reconsideration by the concerned Commissioner, following the precedent set in Mangli Impex Limited v. Union of India. This remand was due to conflicting judicial opinions regarding the jurisdiction under the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, specifically whether the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has jurisdiction. The court noted that these issues are pending before the Supreme Court.The court referenced its prior order in Forech India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, which directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal on its merits without considering the stayed judgment in Mangli Impex Limited. The court instructed the CESTAT to independently assess the jurisdiction and merits of the case, including the imposition of penalties, without being influenced by the Mangli Impex judgment.The appeals were allowed in part, directing the CESTAT to apply independent judgment on jurisdiction and merits, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.