Writ petitions dismissed; petitioner advised to pursue statutory appeal due to appellate authority's remand powers under Customs Act.

The writ petitions were dismissed without costs, allowing the petitioner to pursue a statutory appeal. The court declined to interfere with the impugned order, as the petitioner can present a statutory appeal and raise the plea of limitation before the proper officer upon remand. The appellate authority's remand to a proper officer was upheld, as the original authority lacked jurisdiction. The challenge to the show cause notice was contingent on the success of challenging the remand order, which ultimately failed. The decision emphasized the appellate authority's power to remand under Section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to appellate order and show cause notice, authority to remand the matter, jurisdiction of appellate authority, remand to proper officer, plea of limitation, interference with impugned order, statutory appeal, challenge to show cause notice.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Appellate Order and Show Cause Notice:
The writ petition challenges an appellate order dated 15.05.2024 and a show cause notice dated 23.07.2021. An order dated 21.07.2022 was issued by the second respondent, which was appealed by the Customs Department. The appeal resulted in setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to a proper officer, leading to the challenge in W.P.NO.15896 of 2024.

2. Authority to Remand the Matter:
The petitioner argues that the appellate authority can only remand the matter to the adjudicating authority, not to a proper officer. The contention is based on clause (b) of sub-Section 3 of Section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner further contends that the remand can only be to a subordinate authority, not to a coordinate or higher authority like the Commissioner of Customs or the Principal Commissioner of Customs.

3. Jurisdiction of Appellate Authority and Remand to Proper Officer:
The respondents argue that the appellate authority correctly remanded the matter to a proper officer as the original authority lacked jurisdiction as per Notification No.29/2022-Customs. The appellate authority's power to remand to an adjudicating authority is supported by Section 128A. The definition of adjudicating authority includes a person competent to pass orders, excluding the Board, Commissioner(Appeals), or Appellate Tribunal.

4. Plea of Limitation:
The petitioner raised a plea of limitation under sub-Section 9(b) of Section 28 of the Customs Act, claiming no finding was recorded on this issue in the impugned order. However, the order was set aside primarily on the jurisdictional issue, and the remand to a proper officer allows the petitioner to raise the plea of limitation before the proper officer upon remand.

5. Interference with Impugned Order:
The judge declines to interfere with the impugned order, stating that the petitioner can still present a statutory appeal. Since the challenge to the show cause notice is linked to the challenge of the remand order, and the plea of limitation can be raised before the proper officer upon remand, interference with the impugned order is deemed unnecessary.

6. Statutory Appeal and Challenge to Show Cause Notice:
The writ petitions are dismissed without costs, allowing the petitioner to pursue a statutory appeal. The challenge to the show cause notice is contingent on the success of challenging the remand order, which ultimately fails.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, outlining the arguments presented by both parties and the court's reasoning in dismissing the writ petitions.

---