TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Court remands jurisdiction issue back to original authority after Supreme Court stay on Customs Act notice.</h1> <h3>M/s Elgin Electronics, Shri Sumit Gupta, Manager Versus CC (Preventive), New Delhi</h3> The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act. The ... Jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) - power to issue SCN - Held that: - sub-section 11 was inserted under section 28 of the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 dated 16.09.2011, assigning the functions of proper officers to various DRI officers with retrospective effect - Later on, i.e. for the period subsequent to the amendment, the matter i.e. the DRI officers having the proper jurisdiction to issue the SCN or not had come up before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex vs. Union of India [2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT], and 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 for the period prior to 8.4.11. Matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the availability of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Mangli Impex and then on merits of the case but by providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues involved:Jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notice under Customs Act.Detailed Analysis:The appellants filed appeals against an order dated 17/09/2004. The appellant's counsel argued that the show cause notice issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) was not valid, citing a Delhi High Court case. The Department's counsel defended the notice's validity and requested a decision on merit. The main issue was the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court decision regarding the proper officers under the Customs Act. The Customs Act was amended in 2011 to address this issue. A notification was issued assigning the function of proper officer to DRI officers. Subsequently, a section was inserted in the Customs Act validating the functions of DRI officers as proper officers retrospectively.The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices. However, conflicting decisions arose from other High Courts. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which stayed the Delhi High Court's judgment. Another Delhi High Court case dealt with a similar issue, where the court granted liberty to review the challenge based on the outcome of the Supreme Court appeals. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in the latter case and considering the facts, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority. The authority was directed to decide the jurisdiction issue after the Supreme Court's decision and then proceed on the merits, ensuring the assessee's right to be heard. The status quo was to be maintained until a final decision was reached. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed by way of remand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
