9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the DRI officer is the "proper officer" for issuing the show cause notice. The Supreme Court also upheld the Validation Act by which amendment, the DRI officers were empowered to issue show cause notices. Now that the review petition filed by the Revenue has been allowed, the Petition is taken up for disposal.
The Petitioner is granted twelve weeks time [from the date of uploading of this order on the High Court website] to file an appeal challenging the Order-in-Original dated 30th March, 2023 before the CESTAT.
Conclusion - The DRI officers, Commissionerates of Customs, and other relevant officers are proper officers for issuing show cause notices under Section 28.
Petition disposed off. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the convenience of reference:- "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 This notification later came to be superseded by Notification No. 17/2002 dated 07.03.2002 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, to account for administrative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 offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2011. However, the assessment orders, in respect of which the show cause notices under challenge in Canon India (supra) were issued, were passed under Section 17 of the Act, 1962 as amended by the Finance Act, 2011. (iii) This Court in Canon India (supra) based its judgment on two grounds : (1) the show cause notices issued by the DRI officers were invalid for want of jurisdiction; and (2) the show cause notices were issued after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period. In the present judgment, we have only considered and reviewed the decision in Canon India (supra) to the extent that it pertains to the first ground, that is, the jurisdiction of the DRI officers to issue show cause n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and Explanation 2 operate in two distinct fields and no inherent contradiction can be said to exist between the two. Therefore, we set aside the decision in Mangali Impex (supra) and approve the view taken by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Sunil Gupta (supra). (v) Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 which, inter alia, retrospectively validated all show cause notices issued under Section 28 of the Act, 1962 cannot be said to be unconstitutional. It cannot be said that Section 97 fails to cure the defect pointed out in Canon India (supra) nor is it manifestly arbitrary, disproportionate and overbroad, for the reasons recorded in the foregoing parts of this judgment. We clarify that the findings in respect of the vires of the Fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th this decision and the show cause notices impugned therein shall be restored for adjudication by the proper officer under Section 28. 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 acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
