9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1083 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction - power of DRI to act as proper officer and to issue SCN - Held that - the notice issued by the DRI who was not a competent authority as per the ratio laid down in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. Vs. UOI 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT - In this connection, we note that similar issues have been dealt with in various cases by the Tribunal recently. It is held that the matters have to be remanded back to the original authority for a decision - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Jurisdiction of D.R.I. Officers as 'proper officer' for demand proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 prior to April 2011.
In the present case, the issue revolved around the jurisdiction of the D.R.I. Officers to act as the 'proper officer' for demand proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 before April 2011. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. Vs. Union of India had ruled that D.R.I. Officers were not competent to issue show cause notices for the period prior to 08.04.2011. Various Tribunal benches, including Delhi, Chennai, and Calcutta, had set aside impugned orders and remanded the matters for jurisdictional determination in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Mangali Impex case. The issue arose due to conflicting decisions among different High Courts, leading to the matter being subjudice before the Supreme Court. The Tribunal referred to similar cases and observed that the appeals should be sent back to the adjudicating authority pending the outcome of the apex court judgment in the Mangali Impex case. The Tribunal emphasized the need to maintain status quo until a final decision is reached. The Tribunal also highlighted the amendment to section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, post the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sayed Ali case. The amendment, effective from 08.04.2011, and subsequent notifications aimed to address the jurisdictional issues and empower specific officers, including the Additional Director General, DRI, as 'proper officers' for demand notices under Section 28. The insertion of sub-section 11 under section 28 with retrospective effect further assigned proper officer functions to various DRI officers. However, conflicting views persisted among different High Courts regarding the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices, leading to the matter being brought before the Supreme Court for resolution. In light of the legal developments and conflicting decisions, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matters to the Original Authority for a thorough examination of the jurisdictional issues involved in the appeals. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the apex court's judgment in the Mangali Impex case and providing a fair hearing to both sides. The status quo was directed to be maintained during the interim period until a final decision is reached, ultimately allowing the appeals filed by the assessee by way of remand.
|
