TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 928
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., under Section 28(1)(b) read with Section 124 of the Customs Act, alleging that the goods declared as lighting fixture imported by the appellant, were mis-declared as to description and valuation of the goods. This show cause was issued after the Bill of entry, was passed and the goods have been cleared by the Custom Department. The show cause notice was issued by the Additional Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Lucknow Zonal Unit, Lucknow. 3. The show cause notice was adjudicated on contest and the demand of Rs. 2,98,789/- was confirmed and the value declared in the Bill of entry, was re-determined at Rs. 10,71,159.71/-. The goods in question which were seized post clearance, were held confiscated under Section 11(l)(m) & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. The common question in this batch of matters pertains to the constitutional validity of Section 28(11) of the Customs Act, 1962 ( Act ) which was inserted by the Customs (Amendement and Validation) Act, 2011 ( Validation Act, 2011 ) with effect from 16th September, 2011. In terms of Section 28(11) of the Act, all persons appointed as Customs Officers under Section 4(1) of the Act prior to 6th July 2011 shall be deemed to have and always had the power of assessment under Section 17 and shall be deemed to have been and always had been the proper officers " 2. Section 28(11) of the Act states that the provision would take effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d with effect from 8th April 2011 and not the Section 28 which existed prior to that date. The effect of Section 28(11) is to treat all officers of the Customs to be proper officers only for the purposes of new Section 28 of the Act and not the earlier Section 28 of the Act. In particular, there is no validation of the SCNs issued prior to the amendment of Section 28 of the Act. As observed in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra), a legal consequence cannot be deemed nor, therefrom, can the events that should have preceded it. The past actions of the officers of the DRI and DGCEI who are not designated as proper officer in issuing SCNs for the period prior to 8th April 2011 have not been validated. 68....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct as authorizing the officers of the Customs, DRI, the DGCEI etc. to exercise powers in relation to non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refund for a period prior to 8th April 2011 if, in fact, there was no proper assigning of the functions of reassessment or assessment in favour of such officers who issued such SCNs since they were not proper officers for the purposes of Section 2(34) of the Act and further because Explanation 2 to Section 28 as presently enacted makes it explicit that such non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refund prior to 8th April 2011 would continue to be governed only be Section 28 as it stood prior to that date and not the newly re-cast Section 28 of the Act. 70.2 Section 28(11) interpreted in the above terms w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... writ petitioner, the Hon'ble High Court held that the adjudication order will not be given effect further considering the facts in the writ petition of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. W.P.(C) 4162/15 & CM 10559/2015, wherein SCN dated 02.04.2009, was issued by DRI for declaring Section 28(11) of the Act to be constitutionally invalid. The Hon'ble High observed that it is not in dispute that at the time of issuing of SCN, the DG, DRI or any other officer of the DRI was not specifically assigned the task of re-assessment and therefore, was not a proper officer under Section 2(24) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned SCN and all proceedings consequent thereto, were quashed by the Hon'ble High Court. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel prays....