2017 (8) TMI 56 - AT - Customs

Tribunal remands jurisdiction issue back for decision, upholding fairness and assessee's rights.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the original adjudicating authority to decide the jurisdiction issue after the ... Jurisdiction - power to issue SCN by the officers of DRI/SIB/Commissioner of Customs(Prev.). - Held that: - the powers of officers working in these organizations to issue notice under Customs Act, 1962 as proper officers has been subject matter of decision by various High Courts - we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the original authority to decide the question of jurisdiction first and thereafter on merit after the matter is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending appeals by the Revenue against the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex Vs. Union of India [2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues involved:1. Jurisdiction of officers from DRI/SIB/Commissioner of Customs(Prev.) to issue Show Cause cum Demand Notices under the Customs Act, 1962.2. Interpretation of the amendments to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the appointment of proper officers for issuing demand notices.3. Conflict of decisions among various High Courts regarding the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue Show Cause Notices (SCNs) prior to April 2011.4. Impact of the judgments of different High Courts on the jurisdiction issue.5. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the jurisdiction of DRI officers.Analysis:1. The appeals challenged impugned orders resulting from Show Cause cum Demand Notices issued by officers from DRI/SIB/Commissioner of Customs(Prev.). The question of jurisdiction of these officers to issue such notices under the Customs Act, 1962 was raised. The Tribunal referred to a case where the issue was discussed, noting the conflicting opinions among High Courts and the pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal highlighted the amendments to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and subsequent notifications appointing proper officers for issuing demand notices.2. The Tribunal discussed the retrospective and prospective appointments of Additional Director General, DRI, as a proper officer for issuing demand notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act. It noted conflicting decisions of High Courts on whether DRI officers had jurisdiction to issue SCNs before April 2011. The Tribunal mentioned the conflicting views of different High Courts and the stay granted by the Supreme Court on the Delhi High Court's judgment, indicating that the issue was sub judice.3. Referring to a case where the Delhi High Court granted liberty to review the challenge based on the outcome of appeals filed in the Supreme Court, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority. The Tribunal directed the authority 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.4. Considering similar cases and questions of law, the Tribunal decided to follow a similar course of action. It set aside the impugned orders, remanded the matters to the original authority, and directed them to decide the jurisdiction question first. The Tribunal emphasized waiting for the Supreme Court's decision in pending appeals against the Delhi High Court's judgment before proceeding on the merits. The status quo was to be maintained during this interim period.5. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court in a similar case and the totality of facts and circumstances. The Tribunal aimed to ensure a fair process by allowing the jurisdiction issue to be resolved first, followed by a consideration of the case's merits after the Supreme Court's decision. The Tribunal's approach was to maintain fairness and uphold the rights of the assessee throughout the legal process.