2017 (11) TMI 359 - AT - Customs

Jurisdiction - power of DRI Officer to pass adjudication order - Held that - It may be stated that when an appeal is admitted, order or judgment of lower court is in jeopardy and judgment of Apex Court shall bring the matter to finality as has been held by Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. West Coast Paper Ltd. 2004 (2) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Therefore, as a rule of consistency, this matter may also go back to the adjudicating authority for appropriate decision on the basis of outcome of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mangali Impex 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT . When the review is read, that also exhibits that the adjudicating authority has not examined the corroborative evidence gathered by investigation. This is also a ground for remand of the matter for re-adjudication. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Lack of jurisdiction in adjudication order, consideration of corroborative evidence, remand for re-adjudication

Lack of Jurisdiction:
The judgment addresses the preliminary submission by the assessee-appellants that the adjudication order lacks jurisdiction due to notices being issued by a DRI Officer without proper authority. Reference is made to a decision by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Mangali Impex, which is under challenge in the Supreme Court. The Apex Court has stayed the High Court decision, leading to different Tribunal Benches remanding similar matters for re-evaluation based on the outcome of the Apex Court judgment. The Revenue acknowledges the proposition but cites conflicting decisions by the High Courts of Bombay and Andhra Pradesh. The judgment emphasizes the need for consistency and states that the matter should be sent back to the adjudicating authority for a decision based on the Apex Court judgment.

Consideration of Corroborative Evidence:
The judgment also highlights that the adjudicating authority failed to examine the corroborative evidence gathered during the investigation. This omission is considered a ground for remanding the matter for re-adjudication. It is emphasized that proper appraisal and evaluation of evidence are essential to avoid legal infirmities in the order.

Remand for Re-Adjudication:
The judgment concludes by stating that, as the merit of the case was not addressed, the appeals are remanded to the adjudicating authority. The assessee-appellants are to be granted a reasonable opportunity to present their arguments on both facts and law, ensuring a fair hearing. The adjudicating authority is instructed to record all pleadings and evidence and to issue a reasoned and speaking order after re-evaluating the case based on the outcome of the Apex Court decision.