TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner's show cause notice under Master Circular para 9.3 deferred pending Supreme Court appeals outcome</h1> The Delhi HC held that the petitioner's show cause notice fell within the scope of Call Book Cases under para 9.3 of the Master Circular, therefore no ... Scope of Call Book Cases - Adjudication proceedings in light of the Master Circular - Jurisdiction - power of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to adjudicate the SCN - Held that: - The Court is of the view that since, admittedly, the Petitioner’s SCN would fall within the ambit of ‘Call Book Cases’ under para 9.3 of the Master Circular, there is no urgency at this stage to consider the plea of the Petitioner. It would have to await the outcome of the appeals filed by the Union of India in the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court in Mangli Impex Ltd. v. Union of India [2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - It will be open to the Petitioner to draw the attention of the adjudicating authority to the Master Circular dated 10th March, 2017 and pray for keeping the adjudication proceedings in abeyance in terms thereof. Issues:1. Interpretation of Circular No.1053/02/2017-CX regarding 'Call-Book Cases.'2. Impact of Supreme Court's stay order on the High Court judgment.3. Challenge to Notification No. 61-2016-Customs(NT) empowering DRI officers.4. Adjudication proceedings in light of the Master Circular.5. Future consideration of challenges based on Supreme Court appeals.Analysis:1. The judgment addressed the interpretation of Circular No.1053/02/2017-CX, specifically focusing on 'Call-Book Cases' as per para 9.3. These cases are deferred due to specified reasons, including when the Department appeals to the appropriate authority.2. The impact of the Supreme Court's stay order on the High Court's judgment was crucial. The petitioner's case, falling under Clause 1 of para 9.3, was affected by SLPs filed against the High Court's decision. The stay order necessitated awaiting the Supreme Court's decision before considering the petitioner's plea.3. A challenge was raised against Notification No. 61-2016-Customs(NT), enabling DRI officers to adjudicate the Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner. This challenge stemmed from an attempt to rectify defects highlighted in the High Court's earlier judgment.4. Regarding the adjudication proceedings, the court emphasized the importance of the Master Circular's provisions. Despite the adjudicating authority's request for the petitioner's appearance, the petitioner could refer to the Circular and request a stay in the proceedings as per its guidelines.5. The judgment concluded by outlining the future course of action. The petitioner was permitted to revive the challenge to the Notification based on the outcome of the appeals filed by the Union of India in the Supreme Court. The decision highlighted the interconnected nature of the challenges and the need to await the Supreme Court's rulings for further consideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
