2018 (5) TMI 1568

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....962. Being aggrieved the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 41315/2011 before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court where on 14.12.2011, the Hon'ble High Court has directed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeals in accordance with law within a period of four weeks. 2. With this background Shri Derrick San, the learned counsel raised the preliminary objection that in the instant case prior to 2011, the show cause notice was issued by the DRI who was a competent authority as per the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. vs. Union of India - 2016 (335) E.L.T. 605 (Del.). 3. We have heard all the parties at length and gone through the material available on record. We note that similar issue has come up before....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sue demand notice under Section 28. 4. 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. 5. 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 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. vs. Union of India [2016 (335) E.L.T. 605 (Del.)], and the High Court inter-alia, held that even the new inserted Section 28 (11) does not empower either the officers of DRI or the DGCEI to issue the SCN for the period prior to 08/04/2011. Thus, it is ....