2024 (4) TMI 703 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - DRI - proper officer to issue SCN - power of assessment under Section 17 - When Section 28(11) of Customs Act, 1962, envisages that all persons appointed as officers of Customs under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 before the 6th day of July 2011, shall be deemed to have and always had the power of assessment under Section 17 and shall be deemed to have been and always had been the proper officers for the purpose of this Section, whether CESTAT is correct in disputing/questioning the jurisdiction of the DRI to issue show-cause notice? HELD THAT - The issue raised in this appeal had already been dealt with by this Court in THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS SHRI SANKET PRAFUL TOLIA 2021 (6) TMI 432 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where the same substantial question of law has been raised, and it was held that The 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. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal challenges the final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and remand of the case.

Jurisdiction of DRI and Remand:
The case involved the respondent importing a dyeing machine with CVD exemption, which was later investigated by DRI for not being complete with dye kitchen and accessories. The Commissioner of Customs passed an order demanding differential duty, confiscating the machine, and imposing penalties. The CESTAT remanded the case to decide the jurisdiction issue of DRI. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in remanding without considering the facts and cited precedents. The appellant argued that the issue of DRI's jurisdiction is pending in the Supreme Court, and the Tribunal's order should be set aside based on this. The appellant relied on various decisions to support their argument.

Legal Precedents and Decision:
The Court considered the issue in light of previous judgments, including Commissioner of Customs vs. Sanket Praful Tolia, where the Supreme Court held a similar substantial question of law. Referring to a specific case, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed to keep the appeal pending until the Supreme Court's decision. The Court emphasized that no coercive action should be taken against the respondent/assessee during this period. The Court found this decision applicable to the present case and allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and awaiting the Supreme Court's decision. The Court left the substantial question of law open and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petition without costs.