9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Shri V.Padmanabhan, Member(Technical) Shri Arijit Chakraborty, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.K.Naskar, AC (AR) for the Revenue ORDER Per Shri V. Padmanabhan With the consent of both the sides, we have heard the appeals on merit. 2. During the course of hearing, both the sides have agreed that the notice has been issued by the CC(P) which resulted in the impugned orders. According to both the parties, the CC(P) is not a competent authority as per the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. Vs UOI dated 03.05.2016. Presently, the matter is sub judice before the Hon ble Supreme Court. 3. In this connection, we note that similar issues ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 were amended with effect from 08.04.2011 vide Finance Act, 2011. 6. It is also noticed that in order to overcome the situation created by the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sayed Ali (supra), Notification No. 44/2011-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 Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi. Thus the issue is sub-judice before the Hon ble Supreme Court [2016-TIOL-173-SC-CUS / 2016 (339) ELT A 49 (SC)]. 11. It may be mentioned that recently, the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BSNL Vs. UOI vide writ petition no. C/4438/2017 and CM No. 19387/2017 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 Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
