9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 210 - HC - CustomsJurisdiction - proper officer to issue SCN - competency of the DRI to issue show cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act 1962 - correctness of remanding the appeal - Whether Tribunal is empowered to remand the case without deciding the issues raised therein on the ground that jurisdiction of the officer to issue show cause notice is under dispute? HELD THAT - The issues involved herein have been considered and decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S. BOX CORRUGATORS AND OFFSET PRINTERS 2020 (5) TMI 475 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that in view of the fact that the learned Tribunal has clearly protected the interest of both the Revenue as well as the Assessee by directing the Assessing Authority to keep the matter pending and maintain status quo till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides the appeal of the Revenue in the case of Mangli Impex, filed against the decision of the Delhi High Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal, as in our opinion, no question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. All these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed by setting aside the orders impugned herein and the matters are remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to keep the same pending and await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appeals filed against the decision in Mangali Impex - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Tribunal's power to remand cases without deciding on the issues raised due to jurisdictional disputes. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Competency of DRI to Issue Show Cause Notices: The core issue revolves around whether the DRI officials, who were not designated as proper officers under the Customs Act, 1962 at the relevant time, had the jurisdiction to issue show cause notices. The respondent(s) challenged the legality of the proceedings initiated by DRI officers, arguing that they lacked the jurisdiction to issue such notices. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeals and remanded the matters to the original authority, noting the preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of DRI officials. The Tribunal referred to various decisions, including the case of Mangali Impex vs. UOI, where the Delhi High Court held that DRI officers were not competent to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act. This decision was stayed by the Supreme Court, making the issue subjudice. The Tribunal also noted conflicting decisions from other High Courts, such as the Bombay High Court and the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, leading to further legal ambiguity. 2. Tribunal's Power to Remand Cases: The Tribunal's decision to remand the cases without deciding on the merits was based on the jurisdictional dispute. The Tribunal observed that the issue of DRI officers' jurisdiction was a preliminary legal point and, given the pending legal dispute before the Supreme Court, it opted to remand the matters to the original authority. The Tribunal directed the original authority to decide on the jurisdiction issue after the Supreme Court's decision in Mangali Impex. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's approach, referencing earlier decisions where similar issues were pending before the Supreme Court. In the case of The Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. Box Corrugators and Offset Printers, the High Court decided not to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the status quo should be maintained until the Supreme Court's ruling. However, in a subsequent decision in Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. Sanket Praful Tolia, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's approach of setting aside the orders and remanding the matters. Instead, it directed the Tribunal to keep the appeals pending and await the Supreme Court's decision, ensuring no coercive action against the respondents/assessees. Conclusion: The High Court, following the latest decision in Sanket Praful Tolia's case, allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's orders. The matters were remanded to the Tribunal with instructions to keep them pending until the Supreme Court's decision in Mangali Impex. The High Court also directed that no coercive action should be taken against the respondent(s)/assessee(s) during this period, leaving the substantial questions of law open.
|
