9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000-Cus dated 1st March 2000, intended for implementation of the Indo Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement for import of 1423 nos. of 'visicoolers/ refrigerated display cabinets', valued at Rs. 202,12,154/-, in 23 containers against 14 bills of entry filed between 2nd June 2009 and 15th July 2009. Aggrieved by the findings which confirmed the allegation levelled against the appellant in the show cause notice, present appeals are before us. The primary allegation is that the said goods, after import by appellant, had been shipped to M/s Haikawa Industries P Ltd, Sri Lanka for reimport thereafter to circumvent the condition in notification to avail exemption. The identical classification under sub heading no. 8418 9900 of the First Schedule of Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorised Representative contends that the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has since been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court pending disposal of appeal of Revenue. It was also argued that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay had, in Sunil Gupta v. Union of India [2015 (315) ELT 167 (Bom)], upheld the competence of officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to initiate proceedings under Customs Act, 1962 and that this challenge to jurisdiction had neither been included in the original grounds of appeal nor raised before the lower authorities. The decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Dinkar Y Ghanekar v. Commissioner of Customs (Import) [2017- TIOL-2658-HC-MUM-CUS] was also cited. 3. There is no doubt that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absolute by the Hon'ble High Court itself, should the final outcome in re Mangali Impex decide against the authority of officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to invoke section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. 5. In this context, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in Vuppalamritha Magnetic Components Ltd v. DRI (Zonal Unit), Chennai [2017 (345) ELT 161 (AP)], though against the assessee therein, assumes significance. Justifying its disinclination to re-open the matter settled earlier in that dispute against the assessee therein even though a contrary principle was enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequently, the consequence of such reopening was elaborated thus '14. The contention that all proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant without touching upon the issue of jurisdiction which, if ultimately decided against Revenue, would saddle them with a detriment that should never have been. On the other hand, postponement of decision on merit is not to the detriment of Revenue. Owing to this distinction of consequences, the Tribunal has been deferring the determination of such disputes, on merit, by remanding the matter back to the original authority for awaiting a finality on jurisdiction. We believe that this would best serve the ends of justice. 7. In view of the above factual matrix combined with precarious tilt of balance that may otherwise occur, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original authority to decide upon its jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
