9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ively, is condoned. Applications are disposed of. CUSAA 62/2025 & CUSAA 63/2025 5. These are two appeals filed by the Appellant -M/s Microsoft Licensing GP seeking restoration of the two appeals filed by the Customs Department being Customs Appeal No. C/52942/2015 in CUSAA 62/2025 and Customs Appeal No. C/52578/2015 in CUSAA 63/2025 respectively before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, 'CESTAT'), New Delhi. 6. Both these matters have a long drawn history. Certain Show Cause Notices were issued to various parties in respect of import of software kits from the U.S.A. 7. The noticees to such Show Cause Notices were various Original Equipment Manufacturers ('OEMs') and other importers as well. The said Show Cause Notice bearing DRI F. No. 23/13/2009-DZU/HCL dated 03rd March, 2011 in CUSAA 62/2025 and Show Cause Notice bearing DRI F.No. 23/13/2009-DZU/WIPRO/7039 dated 03rd March, 2011 in CUSAA 63/2025 were issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter, DRI), officials. 8. The said Show Cause Notices were adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority and Order-in-Original dated 24th April, 2015 was passed in Show Cause Notice DRI F. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for fresh decision without expressing any opinion on merits. Counsel for the parties rely on orders dated 20th November, 2017 passed in CUSAA 57/2017, Vipul Overseas Private Limited versus Commissioner of Customs and Others and CUSAA 58/2017, Shri. Surender Garg versus Commissioner of Customs and Others and order dated 13th December, 2017 passed in CUSAA 67/2017, Forech India Private Limited versus Commissioner of Customs Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgement of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited v. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del) is set aside. The appeals preferred before the Tribunal are restored to their original position. The Tribunal would decide the appeals on merits including the question of jurisdiction of the officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence who had issued show cause notices. The said issue would be examined by the Tribunal without being influenced by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mangli Impex Limited (supra). We clarify that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is of the opinion that an identical approach is necessary in these cases. Accordingly, following the order in Forech India (supra), these appeals are allowed partly and the CESTAT would independently apply its mind to the question of jurisdiction and also decide the appeal on merits - including the aspect of imposition of penalty if any. The appeals are allowed in part in the above terms. Pending application also stands disposed of." 14. A similar order was also passed by this Court in CUSAA 170/2022 titled Commissioner of Customs vs. Microsoft Corporation Pvt. Ltd. on 9th December, 2022. 15. As a result of the said orders passed by this Court, HCL Infosystem's appeal got restored before the CESTAT and similar appeals for restoration were also to be sought by the Customs Department in respect of the other matters. However, the Customs Department did not prefer any appeals. 16. The prayer in the present appeals, therefore, is that the two appeals filed by the Customs Department being Customs Appeal No. C/52942/2015 in CUSAA 62/2025 and Customs Appeal No. C/52578/2015 in CUSAA 63/2025, respectively, be restored before the CESTAT so that the same can be heard and adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 Explanation 2 because Section 28(11) 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 Finance Act, 2022 is confined only to the questions raised in the petition seeking review of the judgment in Canon India (supra). The challenge to the Finance Act, 2022 on grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
