9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 695 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) - power to issue SCN - Held that - sub-section 11 was inserted under section 28 of the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 dated 16.09.2011, assigning the functions of proper officers to various DRI officers with retrospective effect - Later on, i.e. for the period subsequent to the amendment, the matter i.e. the DRI officers having the proper jurisdiction to issue the SCN or not had come up before the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex vs. Union of India 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT , and the High Court inter alia, held that even the new inserted section 28(11) does not empower either the officers of DRI or the DGCEI to issue the SCN for the period prior to 8.4.11. Matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the availability of Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Mangli Impex and then on merits of the case but by providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
Jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notice under Customs Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of DRI Officers: The appellants filed appeals against an order dated 17/09/2004, challenging the show cause notice issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The appellants argued that the DRI was not competent to issue such notices, citing a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mangli Impex Vs. UOI. They contended that DRI officers were not proper officers under section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Sayed Ali. The Customs Act was subsequently amended in 2011 to address this issue, with Notification No. 44/2011-Cus (NT) appointing the Additional Director General, DRI as a 'proper officer' for issuing demand notices under Section 28 of the Act from 06/07/2011. Additionally, Section 28(11) was inserted with retrospective effect, designating various DRI officers as proper officers. However, conflicting decisions arose from different High Courts, leading to the matter being sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2. Legal Precedents and Court Decisions: The issue of DRI officers' jurisdiction to issue show cause notices was addressed in various High Court judgments, including the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in Mangali Impex Ltd. Vs. Union of India, which favored the assessee. Conversely, the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh held contrary views. The conflicting decisions prompted the matter to be taken up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which stayed the Delhi High Court's judgment. Subsequently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of BSNL Vs. UOI, granted liberty to review the challenge based on the outcome of the appeals filed by the Union of India in the Supreme Court against the Mangali Impex Ltd. judgment. 3. Tribunal's Decision and Remand: Considering the totality of facts and following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the BSNL case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority. The Tribunal directed the authority to first decide the jurisdiction issue in light of the Supreme Court's decision in the Mangali Impex Ltd. case, and then proceed to decide on the merits of the case while providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The status quo was to be maintained until a final decision was reached, ultimately allowing the appeals filed by the assessee by way of remand.
|
