9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1271 - HC - CustomsCondonation of delay of 48 days in filing the present appeal - whether CESTAT was justified and correct in law in passing an order of remand to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after decision of the Supreme court in Civil Appeal preferred against the decision of Delhi High court in Mangli Impex Limited v. Union of India 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT ? HELD THAT - The impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee s right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex are kept intact. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues: Condonation of Delay in filing appeal, Question of jurisdiction of CESTAT, Applicability of previous court decisions
In this judgment, the court first addresses the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The applicant sought condonation of a 48-day delay, which was granted by the court due to reasons stated in the application. The court disposed of the application accordingly. Moving on, the main issue raised by the appellant in the appeal pertains to the jurisdiction of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Specifically, the appellant questions the correctness of CESTAT's decision to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to decide the issue of jurisdiction after a Supreme Court decision in a related case. Despite the respondent not appearing despite notice, the court considers the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel, highlighting a previous court order in a similar case involving Commissioner of Customs vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. The court refers to this previous order to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to CESTAT for a fresh examination of the appeal on its merits, including the jurisdictional issue. The court clarifies that its decision is not a reflection on the merits of the case or the procedures to be followed by CESTAT. Furthermore, the court cites other similar decisions where impugned orders were set aside, and matters were remitted to CESTAT for a fresh examination. The court emphasizes that the respondent's right to challenge the legality of the show cause notice remains intact, and CESTAT is directed to hear both parties on the merits of the case and the jurisdictional issue separately, if necessary. The findings on jurisdiction based on a previous court decision are subject to the final outcome of proceedings in the Supreme Court. The court reiterates that it does not express any opinion on the merits or procedures to be followed by CESTAT. Finally, the court directs CESTAT to issue reasonable notice to the assessees for the appeal hearing. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms, emphasizing the need for a fresh examination of the appeal by CESTAT while keeping the jurisdictional issue in consideration.
|
