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>Supreme Court Stay on DRI Jurisdiction Issue</h1> The Tribunal considered conflicting decisions among various High Courts regarding the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices under the ... Jurisdiction - officers of DRI/SIB/Commissioner of Customs(Prev.) - power to issue SCN - 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 - the matter remanded 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 DRI officers to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act, 1962.2. Conflict of decisions among various High Courts regarding the jurisdiction of DRI officers.3. Impact of amendments to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.4. Applicability of judgments by different High Courts and the Supreme Court in similar cases.Jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act, 1962:The appeals were against impugned orders resulting from proceedings initiated by the issuance of Show Cause cum Demand Notices by officers of DRI/SIB/Commissioner of Customs(Prev). The issue of jurisdiction of officers to issue notices under the Customs Act, 1962 has been a subject of decision by various High Courts. The Tribunal noted the differing opinions among High Courts and the pendency of the issue before the Supreme Court. It was highlighted that the powers of DRI officers to issue notices were challenged by appellants citing a Supreme Court decision. Amendments to Section 28 of the Customs Act were discussed, empowering DRI officers from specific dates. Conflicting decisions by different High Courts led the matter to the Supreme Court, which granted a stay on the Delhi High Court's judgment, making the issue subjudice. The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case and remanded the matter to the original authority for a decision on jurisdiction post the Supreme Court's ruling.Conflict of decisions among various High Courts regarding the jurisdiction of DRI officers:The judgment highlighted conflicting decisions among High Courts regarding the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, while the Mumbai High Court and the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh held contrary views. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which stayed the Delhi High Court's judgment, indicating the issue's unresolved nature. The Tribunal considered the conflicting decisions and decided to await the Supreme Court's final decision before proceeding on the merits of the case.Impact of amendments to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962:The amendments to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 were discussed, which empowered DRI officers to issue demand notices from specific dates. The retrospective and prospective nature of these amendments was highlighted, along with the subsequent insertion of sub-Section 11 under Section 28. The Tribunal noted the implications of these amendments on the jurisdiction of DRI officers and their authority to issue show cause notices.Applicability of judgments by different High Courts and the Supreme Court in similar cases:The judgment referred to various High Court decisions and the Supreme Court's involvement in resolving the jurisdiction issue of DRI officers. The Tribunal considered the judgments of different High Courts and the stay granted by the Supreme Court on the Delhi High Court's decision. The decision in a similar case by the Delhi High Court was followed, and the matter was remanded pending the Supreme Court's final ruling, maintaining the status quo in the interim period. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision before proceeding on the merits of the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
