9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1423 - HC - CustomsJurisdiction - Proper Officer - power to issue SCN - Whether Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) who is jurisdictional Commissioner also for whole state of Rajasthan is proper officer in view of Section 2(34) of the Customs Act 1962 for assessment under Section 17 and Re-assessment/recovery of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act 1962? - Applicability of case of M/s Mangali Impex vs. CCE 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT . Held that - Since the issue is pending before the Supreme Court against both the judgments of Bombay High Court as well as Delhi High Court and the view taken by the another Division Bench the decision of the Tribunal is proper inasmuch as merely because the judgment is stayed the other Division Bench cannot take a contrary view - no substantial questions of law arises - Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs for assessment and recovery under the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Applicability of the case of M/s Mangali Impex vs. CCE in various appeals. 3. Justification of passing an order of remand by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in a specific case. Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs In multiple appeals, the common question of whether the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), having jurisdiction over the entire state of Rajasthan, is the proper officer for assessment and re-assessment/recovery of duty under Sections 17 and 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 was raised. The Tribunal's decision to remit matters back was challenged. Various appeals raised similar questions, emphasizing the interpretation of Section 2(34) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on conflicting views from different High Courts, with the Karnataka High Court emphasizing the need for the Supreme Court's final decision. The High Court dismissed the appeals, stating that the issue of jurisdiction was pending before the Supreme Court, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration at that stage. Issue 2: Applicability of M/s Mangali Impex Case The case of M/s Mangali Impex vs. CCE was a central point in several appeals, questioning its relevance and reliance by the Tribunal. The appellant argued against the Tribunal's reliance on the Mangali Impex case, citing a stay order by the Supreme Court. The respondent, however, supported the Tribunal's decision, referencing a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and the Karnataka High Court's views on the matter. The Tribunal's remand was based on the need for the Supreme Court's decision on the jurisdiction issue, which was still pending. Issue 3: Order of Remand by CESTAT In a specific appeal, the justification for the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) passing an order of remand was questioned. The Tribunal had remanded the case back to the original adjudicating authority to decide the jurisdiction issue, awaiting the Supreme Court's decision. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, making it unnecessary to keep the case pending before them. The High Court found no substantial question of law requiring further consideration and dismissed the appeal. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the complex legal issues surrounding jurisdiction under the Customs Act, the relevance of precedent cases, and the appropriateness of remanding cases pending the Supreme Court's decision. The decision highlighted the importance of awaiting the Supreme Court's final ruling on contentious issues before making determinations at lower levels.
|
