9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1142 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction - power of DRI to issue SCN - Proper Officer under section 17, 28 and 28AAA and second proviso of section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 - undervaluation of the goods - evasion of payment of appropriate duties of customs - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Quantum Coal Energy P. Ltd. 2021 (3) TMI 1034 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has applied the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to hold that the Show Cause Notice issued by DRI is invalid and the proceedings initiated cannot sustain. The Tribunal in the case of Nitin Jatania vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai 2021 (11) TMI 342 - CESTAT MUMBAI had occasion to analyse the very same issue as to whether DRI has jurisdiction to issue Show Cause Notice. Applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT , the Tribunal held that the Show Cause Notice issued by DRI is invalid. With regard to the appeal filed by M/s. Mining Machinery Service, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the proprietor of the firm is no more and produced the death certificate dated 17 th July 2020. Therefore, the appeal filed stands abated in terms of Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Show Cause Notice having been issued by DRI are ab initio void - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Show Cause Notice issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). 2. Application of the Supreme Court's decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs. 3. Abatement of appeal due to the death of the proprietor. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Show Cause Notice issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI): The primary issue in the case was the validity of the Show Cause Notice issued by the DRI. The appellants argued that the Show Cause Notice issued by the DRI was not sustainable in law, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs. The Supreme Court in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. held that the proceedings initiated by the Additional Director General, DRI, by issuing Show Cause Notices were invalid and without any authority of law. The judgment emphasized that if officers of the DRI were to be entrusted with the functions of Customs officers, it was imperative that the Central Government should have done so under Section 6 of the Customs Act, 1962. The notification issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act was deemed invalid as it did not confer the necessary power. 2. Application of the Supreme Court's decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs: The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. was followed by subsequent judgments, including CC, Kandla vs. Agarwal Metals and Alloys and Quantum Coal Energy P. Ltd. vs. CC, Tuticorin. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rani Enterprises vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs also observed that the decision of the Supreme Court in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. must be followed. The Tribunal in Nitin Jatania vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai, and Arun Kumar Agarwal vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi, also held that Show Cause Notices issued by the DRI were invalid, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. 3. Abatement of appeal due to the death of the proprietor: In the appeal filed by M/s. Mining Machinery Service, it was submitted that the proprietor of the firm had passed away, and the death certificate dated 17th July 2020 was produced. Therefore, the appeal filed by the deceased proprietor stood abated in terms of Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Show Cause Notices issued by the DRI were ab initio void, following the Supreme Court's decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any. The appeal filed by M/s. Mining Machinery Service was abated due to the death of the proprietor. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 27.1.2022.
|
