2019 (2) TMI 692

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act, 1962, along with appropriate interest, and penalty imposed under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 are under challenge. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mangali Impex v. Union of India [2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del)] has held that officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence are not competent to issue notice under section 28 for the period covered by the retrospective grant of authority to do so. 3. Learned Authorised Representative contends that the matter is in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Sunil Gupta v. Union of India [2016 (315) ELT 167 (Bom)] has held that the officers of the said Director....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2017 (345) ELT 161 (AP)], which held that '10. At the outset, we are of the considered view that the writ petition is not maintainable. The show cause notice dated 30-7-2009, which is under challenge in the present writ petition, is no longer in force. The show cause notice has already culminated in a order of adjudication and the order of adjudication has also been confirmed by the Tribunal, the High Court and the Supreme Court. The doctrine of merger has come into play and the show cause notice is not available any more for the petitioner to challenge. 11. Heavily reliance is placed by Mr. P. Vikram, learned counsel for the petitioner on two things viz., (1) the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Mangali Impex Ltd., (supra); and (2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....side the show cause notice would be to set at naught, the order of adjudication, the judgment of CESTAT, the judgment of this Court and the order of Supreme Court. What cannot be achieved by the petitioner directly cannot be achieved by them indirectly. 14. The contention that all proceedings founded upon a show cause notice that was inherently lacking in jurisdiction, would be non est, null and void, is perhaps right as a simple statement of a proposition of law. But it is not without exceptions. If this theory of nullity and voidity is accepted, all proceedings initiated before 8-4- 2011, which have already culminated in orders of adjudication and pursuant to which recoveries have been made, are also to be deemed as non est. Therefore,....