Jurisdictional objection under amended Customs Act must be decided independently despite a stayed precedent, with merits reheard afresh.

Where the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act raised a pending jurisdictional question before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal was required to decide competence independently and not proceed under the stayed decision in Mangli Impex. The Delhi HC partly interfered with the remand and directed the Tribunal to rehear the jurisdictional objection afresh and decide the appeal on merits, including penalty, without being influenced by the unsettled precedent. The matter was thus sent back for independent adjudication on both jurisdiction and merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the remand made by the Tribunal required interference and whether the Tribunal should decide the jurisdictional objection and the appeal on merits independently.

Analysis: The Court followed its earlier order in a similar matter and noted that the question relating to competence and jurisdiction under the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 was pending consideration before the Supreme Court. In that situation, the Tribunal was directed to apply its mind independently to the jurisdictional issue and also decide the appeal on merits, including the question of penalty, without being influenced by the stayed decision in Mangli Impex.

Conclusion: The remand was interfered with in part and the Tribunal was required to decide the jurisdictional question and the appeal on merits afresh.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by granting partial relief to the Revenue and directing fresh adjudication by the Tribunal on jurisdiction as well as merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing jurisdictional issue is pending higher judicial scrutiny, the appellate tribunal should independently determine jurisdiction and adjudicate the merits without being controlled by a stayed or unsettled precedent.

---