AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellate Tribunal ("CESTAT‟) was justified and correct in law in passing an order of remand to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after decision of the Supreme court in Civil Appeal preferred against the decision of Delhi High court in Mangali Impex Limited v. Union of India, 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del.)?" 3. In view of the limited controversy involved we are not required to narrate facts and issues in detail. We would only state necessary facts to decide the afore-stated common question of law. The undisputed position is that that show cause notices were issued by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ("DRI‟ for short) to the respondents and thereupon or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toms Act. The assessee-Appellant had taken a stand that in terms of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Sayed Ali, 2011 (265) 17 (S.C.), the DRI officers were not proper officers in terms of section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. It is also seen that after the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), the provisions of section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 were amended with effect from 08.04.2011 vide Finance Act, 2011. 7. It is also noticed that in order to overcome the situation created by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sayed Ali (supra), Notification No. 44/2011-Cus (NT), dated July 6, 2011 was issued by the CBEC, assigning the fun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vuppalamritha Magnetic Components Ltd. vs. DRI (Zonal Unit), Chennai [2017 (345) E.L.T. 161 (AP)], taking a view contrary to the one taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 11. Being conflicting decisions of various High Courts (Supra), finally the matter reached to Hon'ble Supreme Court who on 07/10/2016 granted the stay of operation of the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi. Thus the issue is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2016-TIOL-173-SC-CUS/2016 (339) ELT A 49 SC)]. 12. It may be mentioned that recently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BSNL Vs. UOI vide writ petition no. C/4438/2017 and CM NO. 19387/2017 h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... would be void and illegal. Reference was made to the legislative amendments post the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs versus Sayed Ali, 2011 (265) ELT 19 (SC), wherein it was held that DRI were not proper officers under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962. Post the judgment in Sayed Ali (supra), notification no. 44/2011- CUS (NT) dated 6th July, 2011 was issued by the CBEC, assigning functions to various officers including Additional Director General, DRI for the purposes of Section 28 of the Customs Act. It is the case of the appellant that therefore from 6th July, 2011, officers of DRI were empowered to issue notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act. Thereafter, sub-Section (11) was inserted under Section 28 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der-in-original to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred in the case of Mangali Impex (supra). In other words, without adjudication and decision on the legal position, the orders-in-original have been quashed and set aside and restored to the authorities to pass fresh orders-in-original. We do not think the said procedure is correct and proper. Tribunal should decide the issue on merits. Once an order-in-original is set aside, it would mean that the entire adjudication proceedings may have to be undergone again. This would be true even if ratio in Mangali Impex (supra) is not accepted. This we think would cause harassment to the assessee as well as inconvenience to the department. 8. We have, in the aforesaid ci....