2017 (8) TMI 1522

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., both the sides agreed that in the instant case, notice was issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Jodhpur, who is not the competent authority as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Mangli Impex vs. Union of India -2016 (335) ELT 605 (Delhi). 4. In this connection, we note that similar issues have been dealt with in various cases by the Tribunal recently. It is held that the matters have to be remanded back to the original authority for a decision after the legal issue is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The decision of the Tribunal in one such case vide Final Order No. 53941-53942 of 2017 dated 12/06/2017 is reproduced below : "During the course of arguments, the appellant‟s counsel has....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on No. 44/2011-Cus (NT), dated July 6, 2011 was issued by the CBEC, assigning the functions of the proper officer to various officers (including Additional Director General, 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. ....