TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 557
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y this Court, has come up with the present writ petition, challenging the very initiation of proceedings with the issuance of a show cause notice. 2. Heard Sri P. Vikram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel representing the learned standing counsel for the respondent. 3. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 30-07-2009, calling upon them to show cause as to why the blank C.Ds imported by them under three bills of entry dated 07-01-2009, classifying them under Ch.Sh.No.85238020 should not be classified under Ch.Sh.No.85234090 and the benefit of exemption claimed under Notification No.6/2016-CE, dated 01-03-2016 should not be denied and for various consequential actio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd and that if any officer other than the proper officer had undertaken these tasks, they would not be valid. Therefore, taking advantage of the said decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, the petitioner has now come up with the present writ petition, challenging the very show cause notice issued by the Additional Director General, on the short ground that he was not a proper officer. 6. It is seen from para-1 of the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Mangali Impex Ltd., that the question that arose before the High Court was about the constitutional validity of Section 28 (11) of the Customs Act, 1962 inserted by the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 with effect from 16-09-2011. Under th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urther 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 by 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 would not suffer the vice of unconstitutionality. Else, it would grant wide powers of assessment and enforcement to a wide range of officers, not limited to customs officers, without any limits as to territorial and subject matter jurisdiction and in such event the provision would be vulnerable to being declared unconstitutional. 8. Therefore, the sum and substance of the case of the petitioner is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spite the fact that the show cause notices had already culminated in orders of finality. In Rajinder Arora and others v. Union of India and others (1 supra), a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court also dealt with a case where the show cause notice had culminated in a order of adjudication, but it was the subject matter of an appeal before the Tribunal. The Punjab & Haryana High8 Court held that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sayed Ali and in the light of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Mangali Impex Ltd., the show cause notice, the adjudication order as well as the consequential recovery proceedings were non-est and void abinitio. 12. But unfortunately, the Delhi High Court as well as the Punjab....