9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 432 - HC - CustomsJurisdiction - Proper Officer u/s 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, or not - Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - power to issue demand notice - HELD THAT - In the case of the Commissioner of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TUTICORIN VERSUS CESTAT, CHENNAI, M/S. SRI RAJENDRA MANSUKHLAL SHAH, SHRI. MOHAMMED AZAM, M/S. VISAL TRIBOTECH (P) LTD., SHRI. R. PARRIVALLAL AND M/S. SHRI. TARUN SALOT 2019 (12) TMI 249 - MADRAS HIGH COURT a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.) was a party, had an occasion to test the correctness of an identical order passed by the Tribunal and by a common Judgment, dated 04.10.2019, set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored the appeals to the file of the Tribunal to be kept pending and await the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court. It was also made clear that the appellant Department shall not initiate any coercive action against the respondents / assessees. The appeals are restored to the file of the Tribunal with a direction to keep the appeals pending and await the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue demand notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Proper procedure to be followed by the Tribunal pending a decision from the Honourable Supreme Court. Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of DRI to Issue Demand Notices The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) are considered proper officers for the purposes of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and if they have the authority to issue demand notices under the Act. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision by the Delhi High Court in the case of Mangli Impex vs. Union of India, where it was held that DRI lacked the competence to issue show-cause notices. The correctness of this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court with an interim stay order. The Tribunal, however, set aside the orders of the First Appellate Authority and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal should have decided on the merits of the case and contended that Section 28(11) of the Act deems all officers appointed before July 6, 2011, to have the power of assessment under Section 17. The High Court acknowledged the pending Supreme Court decision and disagreed with the remand order, emphasizing that the Tribunal should have awaited the Supreme Court's decision. Issue 2: Proper Procedure Pending Supreme Court Decision In a similar case previously heard by a Division Bench of the High Court, it was held that the Tribunal erred in allowing the appeal and directing status quo until the Supreme Court's final decision. The appropriate procedure, as determined by the Court, was to keep the appeals pending and await the Supreme Court's decision in the related case. The Court found that this decision was applicable to the present case, where the Tribunal's orders were identical to those in the previous case. Consequently, the High Court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeals, set aside the Tribunal's orders, and directed the appeals to be restored to the Tribunal's file to await the Supreme Court's decision. The Court emphasized that no coercive action should be taken against the respondents during this period and that the substantial questions of law remained open for further consideration. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the jurisdiction of the DRI to issue demand notices under the Customs Act and the proper procedure to be followed pending a decision from the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized the need to await the Supreme Court's decision on such critical matters and directed the Tribunal to keep the appeals pending until a final decision is reached.
|
