9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 497 - AT - CustomsAppellate Jurisdiction - 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 Vs. 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 - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Lack of jurisdiction in the adjudication order due to notices issued by a DRI Officer. 2. Conflict between decisions of different High Courts regarding jurisdiction issue. 3. Applicability of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar matter pending before the Apex Court. 4. Consideration of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mangali Impex for final decision-making. 5. Granting the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the Apex Court decision. Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses the issue of lack of jurisdiction in the adjudication order due to notices being issued by a DRI Officer without the proper authority. The respondent argues that the decision in a previous case by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi supports their position. However, the Revenue has challenged this decision before the Apex Court, which has stayed the High Court's decision pending appeal. Various Tribunal benches, including the Principal Bench, have remanded similar matters back to the original authority pending the outcome of the Apex Court judgment. 2. The judgment discusses the conflicting decisions of different High Courts regarding the jurisdiction issue. The Revenue points out that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh have held contrary views to the decision cited by the respondent. The learned DR highlights that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has been affirmed by the Apex Court, although the appellate jurisdiction was not exercised due to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. The Tribunal decides to wait for the Apex Court judgment on a similar issue before making a final decision. 3. The judgment considers the applicability of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a matter pending before the Apex Court. The Tribunal acknowledges that it is bound by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court but opts to wait for the Apex Court judgment due to the pending matter. The Tribunal emphasizes the importance of maintaining consistency and waiting for the finality that the Apex Court judgment would bring to the matter. 4. The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mangali Impex for final decision-making. The Tribunal decides to remand the appeals to the adjudicating authority to await the outcome of the Apex Court judgment before proceeding with fresh adjudication. The appellant is granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing to present arguments on both facts and law before the adjudicating authority. 5. Lastly, the judgment discusses the need to grant the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the Apex Court decision. The Tribunal ensures that the appellant will have the chance to argue on both facts and law before the adjudicating authority, which will then pass a reasoned and speaking order. The appeals are ultimately remanded to the adjudicating authority for further proceedings.
|
