2017 (9) TMI 1802

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce was issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), who is not the competent authority as per the ratio laid down in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangli Impex. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mangli Impex Vs. UOI dated 03.05.2016 has observed that the DRI / Preventive is not competent to issue the show cause notices. Hence, the request is being made to set aside the present proceedings where the notice was issued by the DRI / Preventive. 4. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Department has justified the notice issued by DRI / Preventive and made a request to decide the matter on merit. 5. We have heard both the parties at length and gone through the material available on record. We note that si....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been empowered to issue demand notice under Section 28. 9. 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. 10. 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 come up before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex vs. Union of India [2016 335 ELT 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 8.4.11. Thus, ....