9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity and, in doing so, adjudicated a notice issued by Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for, inter alia, finalization of assessment under section 18 of Customs Act, 1962. Considering the criticality of competence to issue show cause notice, the ends of justice will be appropriately met if the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority to be decided afresh after the question of jurisdiction of officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to issue notice for finalisation of assessment is settled. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 51,743.52 with differential duty liability of ₹ 21,67,015.19, confiscated the goods which were permitted to be redeemed on payment of fine of ₹ 15,00,000 besides imposing penalties of ₹ 500000 on the importer and ₹ 100000 on the partner. Aggrieved by these, the appellants are before us challenging the jurisdiction to carry out such re-determination and questioning the rejection of the declared value. 4. According to Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, the importer had been able to obtain the goods at reduced price from M/s Jacky's Gulf FZE and duty liability had been discharged on the value as enhanced by the 'proper officer' which could not have been subject to further enhancement without going t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a [2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del)] though stayed subsequently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the diverging decisions of various High Courts was noted by the Hyderabad bench of this Tribunal while disposing off the appeal in Alumeco India Extrusion Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Hyderabad-I [2010 (249) ELT 577 (Tri.Bang.)]. Subsequent decisions of the Tribunal have considered it appropriate to set aside any impugned order that had its genesis in a show cause notice issued by an officer not empowered to do so without the validation noted supra. 7. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Sunil Gupta v. Union of India [2016 (315) ELT 167 (Bom)] did uphold the empowerment but, after the decision of the Hon'ble Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w cause notices had already culminated in orders of finality. In Rajinder Arora and Others v. Union of India and others (l supra), a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court also dealt with a case where the show cause notice had culminated in a order of adjudication, but it was the subject matter of an appeal before the Tribunal. The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sayed Ali and in the light of the decision f the Delhi High Court in Mangali Impex Ltd., the show cause notice, the adjudication order as well as the consequential recovery proceedings were non est and void ab initio. 12. But unfortunately, the Delhi High Court as well as the Punjab & Haryana High Court have no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rous consequences. 15. There is also one more aspect. It is not the case of the petitioner that they challenged either the impugned show cause notice or the Order-in-Original at the relevant point of time on the ground that the show cause notice was issued by a person not assigned the role of a proper officer. The petitioner had challenged the show cause notice and the order of adjudication on other grounds, which stand rejected up to Supreme Court. Therefore, the principle of finality to litigation would put a seal on the present attempt on the part of the petitioner to reopen the issue all over again.' is a more compelling reason for us to reiterate our consistent stand on the fate of orders such as the one now impugned before us. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
