2017 (7) TMI 509 - AT - Customs

CESTAT Kolkata Remands Case Over Customs Duty Jurisdiction Dispute

Shri Dibakar Mitra Versus Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), West Bengal, Kolkata And Others

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata remanded the case back to the original authorities following jurisdictional disputes regarding the competence of ... Jurisdiction - competence of officers of DRI/Commissioner of Customs(Prev.) to issue SCN - Held that: - While dealing with similar such matters relating to jurisdiction of these authorities to proceed under Customs Act, 1962, the Tribunal in various cases held that the matter has to go back to the original authority for fresh decision after the legal position was settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court - the impugned orders set aside and matter remanded to the original authorities for fresh decision - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Proceedings initiated by DRI/Commissioner of Customs(Prev.); Competence of authorities to issue Show Cause Notice; Jurisdiction of DRI Officers under Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata arose from proceedings initiated by the officers of DRI/Commissioner of Customs(Prev.). The competence of these authorities to issue Show Cause Notices for demanding Customs duty was disputed. Referring to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court case of Mangli Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi, it was noted that prior to the amendment in the Customs Act, 1962 in April 2011, these authorities lacked the power to act as proper officers for proceedings under the Act. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which stayed the Delhi High Court's order.In various cases dealing with jurisdiction issues of these authorities under the Customs Act, the Tribunal held that matters should go back to the original authority for a fresh decision after the legal position was clarified by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal cited decisions of Co-ordinate Benches to support this stance. Notably, in the case of M/s. HR Electronics, the Tribunal observed that the issue of jurisdiction of DRI Officers to issue Show Cause Notices emerged as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal highlighted that subsequent amendments empowered DRI officers to issue demand notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act from July 6, 2011, onwards.The Tribunal discussed conflicting decisions from various High Courts on the issue, leading to the matter being sub judice before the Supreme Court. Citing the case of BSNL Vs. UOI, where the Delhi High Court granted liberty to the petitioner pending the outcome of appeals filed by the UOI in the Supreme Court, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the original adjudicating authority. The Tribunal emphasized the need to decide the jurisdiction issue first after the Supreme Court's decision in the Mangli Impex case, followed by a review on the merits of the case, ensuring the assessee's right to be heard. The Tribunal maintained status quo until a final decision was reached, aligning with similar decisions in other cases.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata's judgment focused on clarifying the jurisdictional issues surrounding the DRI/Commissioner of Customs(Prev.) authorities and emphasized the importance of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision for a final resolution. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matters to the original authorities for a fresh decision underscored the need for a comprehensive review of jurisdiction and due process in line with legal developments.