2022 (5) TMI 1051 - HC - Customs

High Court remands matters to Tribunal pending Supreme Court decision, emphasizes status quo

The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Versus M/s. ITI Ltd.

The High Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, setting aside the orders and remanding the matters to the Tribunal to await the Supreme Court's ... Jurisdiction - power of DRI to issue SCN - Proper Officer or not - Section 28 of the Customs Act 1962 - power of Tribunal to remand the case without deciding the issues raised therein on the ground that jurisdiction of the officer to issue show cause notice is under dispute - HELD THAT:- The issues involved herein have been considered and decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S. BOX CORRUGATORS AND OFFSET PRINTERS [2020 (5) TMI 475 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that in view of the fact that the learned Tribunal has clearly protected the interest of both the Revenue as well as the Assessee by directing the Assessing Authority to keep the matter pending and maintain status quo till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides the appeal of the Revenue in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS MANGALI IMPEX LTD. [2016 (8) TMI 1181 - SC ORDER], filed against the decision of the Delhi High Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal, as in our opinion, no question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. It is made clear that the appellant shall not initiate any coercive action against the respondent(s)/assessee(s) and await the final decision in the appeals, which have been restored to the file of the Tribunal - petition closed. Issues involved:1. Whether CESTAT was correct in remanding the appeal when jurisdictional High Court judgments upheld the competency of DRI to issue show cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act 1962.2. Whether the Tribunal can remand the case without deciding the raised issues due to a dispute over the jurisdiction of the officer to issue show cause notice.Analysis:Issue 1:The appellant filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeals against CESTAT's orders allowing appeals by the respondents after following the Delhi High Court decision in the case of BSNL v. Union of India. The preliminary issue was about the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue notices under the Customs Act. The appellant argued that DRI officers were not proper officers as per the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs vs. Sayed Ali. The Customs Act was amended in 2011 to address this issue, and various notifications were issued to assign functions to officers, including the Additional Director General of DRI. Conflicting decisions from different High Courts led the matter to the Supreme Court, which stayed the Delhi High Court's judgment. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in BSNL v. UOI, the appeals were allowed by way of remand for the original adjudicating authority to decide the jurisdiction issue after the Supreme Court's decision in Mangali Impex.Issue 2:In previous cases, the Tribunal had remanded matters to the adjudicating authority pending the Supreme Court's decision on the jurisdiction issue. However, in subsequent decisions, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's approach and set aside the orders, directing the appeals to be kept pending awaiting the Supreme Court's decision. The latest decision in Sanket Praful Tolia's case was followed, setting aside the orders and remanding the matters to the Tribunal to await the Supreme Court's decision in appeals related to Mangali Impex. It was emphasized that no coercive action should be taken against the respondents/assessees until the final decision. The substantial questions of law were left open, and no costs were awarded.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, setting aside the orders and remanding the matters to the Tribunal to await the Supreme Court's decision on the jurisdiction issue. The Court emphasized maintaining status quo and refraining from coercive actions against the respondents/assessees until the final decision. The substantial questions of law were left open for further consideration.