9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1110 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction - power of DRI to issue SCN - Revenue s argument is that Proper Officer being also used in drawback rule, the meaning of proper officer shall be known upon adjudication of the matter in Mangali Impex by Apex Court 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT . Held that - the drawback is also an incentive granted through Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 where there is recognition of Proper Officer - as an abundant caution, following Mangali Impex judgment it would be preferable to await for the apex Court judgment since the concept of Proper Officer may be adjudicated by Apex Court for different purposes of law also. Appeal placed on remand.
Issues: Lack of jurisdiction in adjudication order due to notices issued by DRI Officer, conflicting decisions by different High Courts, pending Apex Court decision, interpretation of "Proper Officer" in penalty imposition case.
The judgment addresses multiple issues concerning the lack of jurisdiction in the adjudication order due to notices issued by a DRI Officer. The appellants argue that the notices were issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction, citing the decision in the case of Mangali Impex Vs. Union of India. However, the Revenue challenges this decision in the Apex Court, which has stayed the High Court's decision. Various Tribunal Benches, including the Principal Bench, have remanded similar jurisdiction matters to the original authority pending the Apex Court judgment outcome. The Revenue acknowledges the conflicting decisions of different High Courts on this matter, with the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and Andhra Pradesh holding contrary views. The Tribunal, being a subordinate court, opts to wait for the Apex Court's decision, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case without overreaching the Apex Court's jurisdiction. Regarding the interpretation of the term "Proper Officer" in the imposition of penalties under Section 124 and confiscation cases, the judgment highlights the importance of awaiting the Apex Court's decision in the Mangali Impex case. The Revenue argues that the case involves a penalty under Section 124 followed by confiscation, where the show cause notice was issued by the proper officer. However, the concept of "Proper Officer" is also relevant in drawback rules, necessitating clarity through the Apex Court's judgment. The judgment emphasizes the need to await the Apex Court's decision to understand the meaning of "Proper Officer" in various legal contexts. As a result, all the appeals are remanded, allowing the appellants a reasonable opportunity to present their case based on the outcome of the Apex Court judgment, ensuring a reasoned and speaking order by the adjudicating authority. In conclusion, the judgment meticulously navigates the complexities arising from conflicting High Court decisions, pending Apex Court judgment, and the interpretation of legal terms like "Proper Officer" in penalty imposition cases. By opting for a cautious approach and aligning with the decisions of higher courts, the Tribunal ensures a fair and informed resolution of the appeals, maintaining the rule of consistency and upholding the principles of natural justice.
|
