9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law by the Hon ble Supreme Court (Supra), the provisions of section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 were amended with effect from 08.04.2011 vide Finance Act, 2011. It is also noticed that in order to overcome the situation created by the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sayed Ali, Notification No.44/2011-Cus (NT), dated July 6, 2011 was issued by the CBEC, assigning the functions of the proper officer to various officers (including Additional Director General, DRI) mentioned in the notification, for the purposes of Section 28 of the Act. Thus, w.e.f. July 6, 2011, the Additional Director General, DRI was prospectively appointed as proper officer for the purpose of Section 28 of the Customs Act. Hence, from 06.07.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the proceedings in the case were initiated by a show cause notice dated 6.12.2012 by DRI. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mangli Impex Vs. UOI by their order dated 03.05.2016 has observed that the DRI/SIIB is not competent to issue show-cause notice. Hence, the request is being made to set aside the present proceedings where the show-cause notice was issued by the DRI/DGCEI. 4. From the record, it appears that the preliminary issue which emerges in the present appeal is regarding the jurisdiction of the DRI to issue the show-cause notice under the Customs Act. The assessee-Respondent has taken a stand that in terms of the Hon ble Apex Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sayed Ali, 2011 (26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the High Court inter alia, held that even the new inserted section 28 (11) does not empower either the officers of DRI or the DGCEI to issue the SCN or adjudicate for the period prior to 8.4.2011. 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. 9. However, it is further noticed that the said issue was also the subject matter of Hon ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Gupta Vs. Union of India [2015 (315) ELT 167 (Bom) as also of the Hon ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vuppalamritha Magnetic Components Ltd. Vs. DRI (Zonal Unit), Chennai [2017 (345) ELT 161 AP], taking a view contrary to the one taken by the Hon ble Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
