9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not empower either the officers of DRI or the DGCEI to adjudicate the SCN issued by them for the period prior to 08/04/2011. Matters remanded to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C/333/2006-DB, C/277/2006-DB - Final Order No. 20521-20522 / 2017 - Dated:- 24-4-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Shri B.V Kumar, Advocate, None for Shri Radheshyam Rander For the Appellant Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan Both the appeals are filed against the Order-in-Original No.21/2006-Cus dt. 01/05/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground, we have heard Shri B.V. Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant M/s. Vijaya Silk House Ltd. and Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) for the Revenue. None present for the appellant Shri Radhe Shyam Rander. 5. In the instant case, we note that the investigations into the allegations have been carried out by the DRI and the show-cause notice dt. 10/01/2001 was also issued by the DRI. From the record, it appears that a preliminary issue emerges in the present appeals is regarding the jurisdiction of the DRI officers to issue show-cause notice under the Customs Act. The Apex Court in its decision in the case of CC Vs. Sayed Ali [2011(265) 17 (SC)] held that DRI officers were not proper officers in terms of Section 2(34) of the Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o adjudicate the SCN issued by them for the period prior to 08/04/2011. Thus it is seen that the said order of the Hon ble Delhi High Court is in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, the said decision of the Hon ble Delhi High court stand stayed by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported as 2016(339) ELT A 49 (SC). 10. However, it is further noticed that the said issue was also the subject matter of Hon ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Gupta Vs. UOI [2015(315) ELT 167 (Bom.)] as also of the Hon ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vuppalamritha Magnetic Components Ltd. Vs. DRI (Zonal Unit), Chennai [2017(345) ELT 161 (AP)] taking a view contrary to the one taken by the Hon ble Delhi High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
