9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication no. 78/2000-Cus dated 26th May 2000, on the import of 'citric acid monohydrate' against bills of entry no. 377250/31.07.2003, 380297/11.08.2003, 13893/17.06.2003 and 418769/17.12.2003. 2. Learned Counsel for appellant does not press for admission of miscellaneous application. Accordingly miscellaneous application is rejected. 3. It is submitted by Learned Counsel that the show cause notice in this case has been issued by Additional Director General of Revenue Intelligence and that the jurisdiction to do so has been placed in jeopardy following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mangali Impex vs. Union of India [2016 335 ELT 605 Del.]. 4. Learned Authorised Representative contests this submission by relying on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal 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 for remand to the original authority. 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 High Court of Delhi in re Mangali Impex, considered it fit to admit challenges to that very competence in Sun Polytron Industries Ltd v. Union of Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 of 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 not considered the issue from the point of view of merger. It is needless to point out that the doctrine of merger is a common law doctrine founded on pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 principle of finality of litigation may have the effect of sanctifying illegal proceedings if, ignoring the issue of jurisdiction, merit alone is cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
