9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant-Revenue is that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) is the Proprietor of a Jewellery Shop namely "Jewellers Jasraj Shantilal Baid". The office and the residential premises of the Petitioner were searched by Appellant No.2 on 1.5.2021 and 2.5.2021. In the process of search, the Appellant No.2 recovered 4652.235 gram of gold bar and cuttings. Similarly, they also seized 4563.446 gram of fine silver and 407.907 gram of silver ingots. The writ petitioner was arrested on 4.5.2021 and he was sent to judicial custody for a period of 60 days by the Trial Court. Thereafter, he was released on bail by the Trial Court. The whole proceeding of search and seizure on the writ petitioner's premises was conducted on an incident that took place on 1.5.2021 whereby two persons namely Jijoba Shankar Kadam and Ranjit Phate were intercepted at the Raipur Railway Station and from their possession a huge quantity of Silver and Gold were recovered. Subsequent to the writ petitioner being released on bail, the appellant authorities had been issuing summons after summons to appear before them and insisting his presence for interrogation and for further proceeded in the matter. It was this seiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002, and by the Board afterward) right from 01.02.1963 to 16.09.2014. The relevant Notifications in chronological order, are as under: "(i) Notification No. 37 /F. No. 4/1 /63-CAR. dated 01.02.1963, issued by the Central Government, vide which the Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence was appointed as Collector of Customs; (ii) Notification No. 38/F. No. 4/1 /63-CAR. dated 01.02.1963, issued by Central Government, vide which all officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence were appointed as officers of Customs; (iii) Notification No. 186/F. No. 437/3/79-Cus. IV dated 04.08.1981, issued by Central Government, vide which different classes of officers of DRI, were appointed as Collectors, Deputy Collectors and Assistant Collectors of Customs with respect to defined territorial jurisdictions; (iv) Notification 07.07.1997 issued No. by 31/1997-Cus (NT) dated the Central Government, superseded Notification No. 38/63 dated 01.02.1963. Vide the Notification dated 31/1997 dated 07.07.1997, in Point No. 04 it is explicitly mentioned that all officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officers are officers of Customs, the same is reproduced as under:- "Supersess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above submission made by Mr. Acharya. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. The issue raised before the learned Single Judge was whether the proceedings initiated by the authorities of the Appellants was justified or not. 11. The Supreme Court, in Commissioner of Customs (supra), has observed as under: "168. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that: (i) DRI officers came to be appointed as the officers of customs vide Notification No. 19/90-Cus (N.T.) dated 26.04.1990 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. This notification later came to be superseded by Notification No. 17/2002 dated 07.03.2002 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, to account for administrative changes. (ii) The petition seeking review of the decision in Canon India (supra) is allowed for the following reasons: a. Circular No. 4/99-Cus dated 15.02.1999 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi which empowered the officers of DRI to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Act, 1962 as well as Notification No. 44/2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia (supra) insofar as the issue of limitation is concerned. (iv) The Delhi High Court in Mangali Impex (supra) observed that Section 28 (11) could not be said to have cured the defect pointed out in Sayed Ali (supra) as the possibility of chaos and confusion would continue to subsist despite the introduction of the said section with retrospective effect. In view of this, the High Court declined to give retrospective operation to Section 28 (11) for the period prior to 08.04.2011 by harmoniously construing it with Explanation 2 to Section 28 of the Act, 1962. We are of the considered view that the decision in Mangali Impex (supra) failed to take into account the policy being followed by the Customs department since1999 which provides for the exclusion of jurisdiction of all other proper officers once a show cause notice by a particular proper officer is issued. It could be said that this policy provides a sufficient safeguard against the apprehension of the issuance of multiple show cause notices to the same assessee under Section 28 of the Act, 1962. Further, the High Court could not have applied the doctrine of harmonious construction to harmonise Section 28 (11) with Explanat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c. Where the orders-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 28 have been challenged before the High Courts on the ground of maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show cause notices, the respective High Court shall grant eight weeks' time to the respective assessee to prefer appropriate appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). d. Where the writ petitions have been disposed of by the High Court and appeals have been preferred against them which are pending before this Court, they shall be disposed of in accordance with this decision and this Court shall grant eight weeks' time to the respective assessee to prefer appropriate appeals before the CESTAT. e. Where the orders of CESTAT have been challenged before this Court or the respective High Court on the ground of maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show cause notices, this Court or the respective High Court shall dispose of such appeals or writ petitions in accordance with the ruling in this judgment and restore such notices to the CESTAT for hearing the matter on merits. f. Where appeals agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
