2017 (12) TMI 381

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9.2007 passed by Commr. of Central Excise, Bolpur. 2. Heard Dr. Samir Chakraborty, ld. Sr. Advocate, for the appellants and Shri S. Guha, ld. A.R. for the Revenue. 3. During the course of arguments, both the parties have agreed that in the instant cases, the notice was issued by the Additional Director General (DGCEI) who is not the competent authority as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. Vs. UOI dated 03/05/2016 [2016 (335) E.L.T. 605 (Del.)] . 5. From the record, it appears that identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in a number of cases including the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal passed in connection with the show cause notices issued prior to September 16,2011 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., DRI) mentioned in the notification, for the purposes of Section 28 of the Act. Thus, w.e.f. July 6, 2011, the Additional Director General, DRI was prospectively appointed as proper officer for the purpose of Section 28 of the Customs Act. Hence, from 06/07/2011 ADG-DRI has been empowered to issue demand notice under Section 28. 7. Subsequently, sub-Section (11) was inserted under Section 28 of the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 dated 16/09/2011, assigning the functions of proper officers to various DRI officers with retrospective effect. 8. Later on, i.e. for the period subsequent to the amendment, the matter i.e. the DRI officers having the proper jurisdiction to issue the SCN or not had came up before the....