2019 (12) TMI 249 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - power to issue SCN - whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the appeals on the ground that the jurisdiction issue has to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appeal filed against the decision of the High Court of Delhi, in the case of MANGALI IMPEX V. UNION OF INDIA 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT ? - maintaining status quo till a final decision is arrived at - HELD THAT - The Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the appeal and consequently directing status quo till the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the appropriate procedure that should have been adopted is to keep the appeals pending and await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appeals filed against the decision in Mangali Impex. Therefore, we are inclined to take similar view in these appeals as well. The appeals are restored to file of the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall keep the appeals pending and await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
- Questions of law regarding jurisdiction and maintenance of status quo

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras heard appeals filed by the Revenue challenging an order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue raised substantial questions of law related to the Tribunal's decision. The first issue was whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the appeals based on the jurisdiction matter pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case from the High Court of Delhi. The second issue was whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeals and directing status quo until a final decision was reached.

The Court noted that identical orders were previously reviewed at the Principal Bench, where one of the judges was involved. After detailed arguments, it was concluded that the Tribunal erred in allowing the appeal and directing status quo until the Supreme Court's final decision. The appropriate procedure should have been to keep the appeals pending and await the Supreme Court's judgment in the related case. Therefore, the High Court decided to take a similar view in the present appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the appeals were restored to the Tribunal's file. The Tribunal was instructed to keep the appeals pending and await the Supreme Court's decision. The Department was prohibited from taking any coercive action against the respondents and was required to await the final decision in the appeals. No costs were awarded in this matter.