9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter of the appellant and other persons mentioned in the show cause notice, will depend upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this matter need not be kept pending here on our Board and in our considered view no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C.S.T.A. No.15 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2018 - Vineet Kothari And S. Sujatha, J. Mr. S. Vittal Shetty, Adv. for Appellant ORDER The appellant- Sri.Deepak M.Ganeyan, Bangalore has filed this appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 ( Act for short) purportedly raising the substantial question of law arising from the order of the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) ELT 605 (Del.)] held that despite such amendment in law, the Officers of DRI or DGCEI were not having jurisdiction to decide the show cause notices issued by them for the period prior to 8.4.2011. 5. The matter was, therefore again taken up before the Hon ble Supreme Court against the aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court and the operation of the said decision is said to have been stayed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, as reported in 2016(339) ELT A.49 (SC). 6. The Hon ble High Courts of Mumbai, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, however took a different view of the matter as noted by the learned Tribunal. The relevant portion of the observations of the learned Tribunal are quoted before for ready reference: 3. From the record, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, i.e. for the period subsequent to the amendment, the issue of DRI officers having the proper jurisdiction to issue the SCN came up before the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex Vs. UOI [2016(335) ELT 605 (Del.)], inter alia, laying down that even a new inserted Section 28(11) does 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. 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). 8. However, it is further noticed that the said issue wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decides the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. (supra) arising from the Judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in 2016(339) ELT A.49 (SC). The matter is thus, at this stage, pending before the said adjudicating Authority in which even the question of jurisdiction of the DRI officers or the original adjudicating Authority is yet to be decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court. The matter is, thus still pending before the original adjudicating Authority only. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, urged before us that in these circumstances, the learned CESTAT should not have and could not have remanded the case back to the adjudicating Authority, who, ultimately may not have the jurisdiction to decide these proceedings at all and it would d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
