9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r alia, held that even the new inserted section 28(11) does not empower either the officers of DRI or the DGCEI to issue the SCN for the period prior to 8.4.11. Matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the availability of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Mangli Impex and then on merits of the case but by providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Customs Appeals No. 659-661 of 2006 - Final Order No. 53934-53936/2017 - Dated:- 12-6-2017 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member ( Technical ) None for the appellants Shri R.K. Manjhi, Authorized Representative (DR) for the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2011-Cus (NT), dated July 6, 2011 was issued by the CBEC, assigning the functions of the proper officer to various officers (including Additional Director General, DRI) mentioned in the notification, for the purposes of Section 28 of the Act. Thus, w.e.f. July 6, 2011, the Additional Director General, DRI was prospectively appointed as proper officer for the purpose of Section 28 of the Customs Act. Hence, from 06/07/2011 ADG-DRI has been empowered to issue demand notice under Section 28. 6. Subsequently, sub-Section (11) was inserted under Section 28 of the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 dated 16/09/2011, assigning the functions of proper officers to various DRI officers with retrospective effect. 7. Later on, i.e. f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7/2017 has dealt with the identical issue where the notice was also issued by DRI. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi has considered the judgment in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. Vs. UOI which is stayed by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported as 2016 (339) E.L.T. A 49 (SC). Finally the Hon ble High Court has granted liberty to the petitioner by observing that petitioner is permitted to review the challenge depending on the outcome of the appeals filed by the UOI in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Court in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. 11. By following the ratio laid down by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BSNL (Supra) as well as by considering totality of facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
