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 allows delay condonation in CUSAA cases, emphasizes independent jurisdiction review. CESTAT to decide on penalties.</h1> <h3>PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) Versus KARAN GAMBHIR</h3> The Court allowed the condonation of delay in multiple applications filed by the appellant in CUSAA cases. The Court emphasized the need for an ... Competence and jurisdiction under the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Power to issue SCN - Held that:- Following the order in Forech India [2017 (12) TMI 984 - DELHI HIGH COURT], these appeals are allowed and the CESTAT would independently apply its mind to the question of jurisdiction and also decide the appeal on merits including the aspect of imposition of penalty if any - appeal allowed in part. Issues:1. Condonation of delay in multiple applications.2. Competence and jurisdiction under amended Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Remand of issues by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) for reconsideration.4. Dichotomy of judicial opinion regarding the competence and jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.5. Pending issues before the Supreme Court.6. Disposal of appeals based on previous judgments.Condonation of Delay:The Court allowed the condonation of delay in multiple applications filed by the appellant in CUSAA cases. The delay was condoned based on the reasons stated in the applications, and notice was accepted by the respondent's advocate.Competence and Jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Customs Act:The Revenue's grievance in the appeals was related to the remand of issues by CESTAT for reconsideration by the concerned Commissioner. This remand was due to a dichotomy of judicial opinion regarding the competence and jurisdiction under the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court noted conflicting views on the jurisdiction of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and referred to previous judgments, including one in Vipul Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors. The Court emphasized the need for an independent consideration of jurisdiction and directed CESTAT to decide the appeals on their merits, including the imposition of penalties.Remand of Issues by CESTAT:CESTAT remanded the issues for reconsideration by the Commissioner based on previous judgments and the conflicting opinions on the competence and jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court, in line with previous orders, directed CESTAT to independently assess the jurisdiction and decide the appeals on their merits, disregarding the judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited.Pending Issues Before the Supreme Court:The Court acknowledged that the issues in the appeals were pending consideration before the Supreme Court. In light of this, the Court followed its previous order in Forech India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and disposed of the appeals, allowing CESTAT to independently determine jurisdiction and decide on the imposition of penalties.Disposal of Appeals Based on Previous Judgments:After considering the submissions of the parties and the materials on record, the Court concluded that an identical approach to the disposal of appeals was necessary in these cases. The Court allowed the appeals in part, directing CESTAT to independently assess jurisdiction and decide on the appeals' merits, including any penalties that may be imposed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
