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>Customs Appeal Remanded: HC Orders Fresh Hearing at CESTAT, Emphasizes Independent Case Evaluation</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs Versus Microsoft Corporation Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Delhi HC set aside CESTAT's order in a customs appeal, directing CESTAT to decide the case on merits without being influenced by a pending Supreme Court ... Remand of matter with the direction that the issue regarding the jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- The appeals preferred by the department against the similar orders passed by the CESTAT, have been disposed of by this court by setting aside the orders passed by CESTAT and remanding the matter to CESTAT for deciding the appeals on merits including on the question of jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs without being influenced by the decision of this court in Mangali Impex Ltd. [2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'the SCN was issued by the ADG, DRI who at the time of issuance of the said SCN had not been assigned functions by the CBEC of assessment or reassessment and, therefore, is not a “proper officer” under Section 2(34) of the Act'. The impugned order is set aside - appeal disposed off. The Delhi High Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, reviewed an appeal challenging the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's (CESTAT) order dated 06.07.2017 in custom appeal No. C/50354/2016. The CESTAT had previously set aside an order by the Commissioner of Customs and remanded the matter, pending a Supreme Court decision on a related jurisdictional issue in Mangali Impex Ltd. v. Union of India.The High Court noted that similar appeals had been disposed of by setting aside CESTAT's orders and remanding the cases back to CESTAT for a decision on merits, including jurisdictional questions, without being influenced by the Mangali Impex decision, which is under Supreme Court review. Specifically, in PR. Commissioner of Customs v. Kunal Lalani, the court directed CESTAT to assess the competence of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)/Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue show cause notices.In line with this precedent, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed CESTAT to decide the appeal on its merits, including the jurisdictional issue, uninfluenced by the Mangali Impex case. The court clarified it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the disputes. Additionally, the appellant's counsel stated that the department would ascertain the status of cases against other noticees and pursue similar appeals if necessary.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
