9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Cestat Ahmedabad to restore the appeal no. C/11486/2014 arising out of Order in Original no. KDL/COMMR/45/2013-14 dated 31.12.2013 and remand the said matter to the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla; B. Your Lordships be pleased to pending the admission and final hearing of the present petition stay the operation implementation and execution in every manner of the above referred Order in Original dated 31.12.2013." 2 The need to approach this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arises in the background of facts as under: 2.1 The Directorate of Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad received specific intelligence that one M/s. Saraf Impex Private Limited, was engaged in the export of "Muriate of Potash", a restricted commodity for exports, in the guise of Feldspar Powder / Industrial Salt, to buyers based at Belgium, China etc. Since the goods in question were transported through, the transport company of the petitioner, the petitioner was also roped in, in the investigations, based on the statements recorded by the agency, of persons associated with the export, including the petitioner. 2.2 A show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to deposit a large amount of Rs. 80 lakhs in the third appeal. An application was also preferred for modification of the stay order dated 04.12.2014. In view of such applications filed and pending, petition filed before the Gujarat High Court was withdrawn. The Tribunal heard these applications seeking restoration of appeal and modification of stay. One of the arguments advanced therein by the advocate for the noticees was that DRI had no jurisdiction to issue show cause notices for the period prior to 08.04.2011, the date of amendment to the definition of "proper officer" laid down in section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. 3.2 Considering the financial hardships pleaded, the Tribunal by an order dated 14.06.2016 directed, as far as the petitioner is concerned, to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs as pre-deposit within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order, failing which the appeal would be dismissed. On receipt of such an order, the petitioner, on 30.08.2016, deposited an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs and made a further application for modification of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the order dated 12.09.2017 passed by the Tribunal, in an identical appeal. The order reads as under: "4. We find that this Tribunl in Rahul Arora's case (supra) taking into consideration the principles of law relating to authority of the DRI officers to issue show cause notice for the period prior to 6.7.2011 under the Customs Act, 1962 has observed that there are two view possible on the said issue and consequently, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. It is observed at para 10 as follows: "10. The developments show that there are two views holding the field and the matter now stand before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In an earlier case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Impex vs. C.C. Delhi - 2012 (26) STR 257 (SC) has remanded the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to examine the issue of jurisdiction afresh in the light of decision in Sayed Ali (supra). As already observed the entire issue is once again before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In these circumstances, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matters to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after the availability of Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amin submitted that, in the case of Mangali Exports, the Court had declared the retrospective Validation Act as ultra vires but upheld the amendment for the period after 08.04.2011. Since the show cause notice in the present case was issued on 14.08.2012, it was valid. 7 Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, what emerges from the record and is also undisputed is that: (a) The petitioner, who has challenged the present O.I.O dated 31.12.2013, and the appeal, a subject matter, thereof, which was dismissed for non compliance of full pre-deposit, had also been facing two other identical cases vide OIO dated 29.03.2012 and OIO dated 27.09.2013. (b) In an appeal arising out of OIO dated 29.03.2012, the Tribunal by an order dated 21.11.2012, in a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs, ordered pre-deposit of Rs. 1 lakh only. (c) In an appeal arising out of OIO dated 27.09.2013 the Tribunal, by an order dated 21.08.2014 had ordered predeposit of Rs. 10 lakhs. (d) Amounts of both these pre-deposits ordered was deposited by the petitioner, Rs. 10 lakhs plus Rs. 1 lakh, totaling to Rs. 11 lakhs in all. (e) In the applications for stay, restoration and modification made i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
