2017 (7) TMI 234 - AT - Customs

Jurisdiction of the DRI Officers - power to issue SCN - whether DRI officers were proper officers in terms of section 2(34) of the CA, 1962? - Held that - this issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Alumeco India Extrusion Ltd. Versus CCE, Customs & ST, Hyderabad 2017 (4) TMI 980 - CESTAT HYDERABAD , in the case the Bench being presided over by the Hon ble President, CESTAT wherein the matters were remanded back to the adjudicating authority - the present appeals are also allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The advocate for the appellants raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the proceedings due to show cause notices issued by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers, contending they were not proper officers under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs Sayed Ali. The appellants sought allowance of the appeals solely on this preliminary objection.

2. The department argued that despite the Sayed Ali judgment, the Supreme Court admitted the department's appeal against the Delhi High Court's decision in Mangali Impex Ltd., Vs UOI, which relied on Sayed Ali to hold that DRI officers lacked the power to issue show cause notices before 06-07-2011. The department contended that since the Mangali Impex judgment was admitted and a stay was granted by the Supreme Court, the appellants could not rely on it to support their appeal.

3. The Tribunal examined the jurisdiction issue concerning DRI officers' authority to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act. The appellants cited the Sayed Ali case to argue that DRI officers were not proper officers under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962, based on the Supreme Court's decision.

4. Referring to previous Tribunal orders and High Court decisions, the Tribunal noted conflicting views on the issue. The Tribunal observed that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court due to differing decisions by various High Courts. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the jurisdiction issue post the Supreme Court's decision in Mangali Impex and then address the case's merits.

5. Following the precedent and decisions mentioned, the Tribunal allowed the present appeals by way of remand, aligning with the directions in Tribunal Order No. 52851/2017 dated 11.04.2017.

6. The appeals filed by the Appellants were allowed by way of remand, with the operative part of the order pronounced in court upon the hearing's conclusion.