2020 (3) TMI 38

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is condoned. 4. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. 5. In this appeal preferred by the Revenue, the question urged is whether the CESTAT was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the Primary Adjudicating Official, to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after awaiting final decision by the Supreme Court in the appeal (by Special Leave) against Mangali Impex Limited v. Union of India, 2016 (335) E.L.T. 605 (Del.). 6. Counsel for the respondent/assessee points out that the decision in Mangali Impex (supra) has been appealed against by the Revenue in the Supreme Court, where it is awaiting final adjudication. It is contended that the ratio in Mangali Impex (supra) has been accepted by the Rajasthan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Tribunal should adopt and follow." 9. In Davinder Singh (supra) however, earlier the Division Bench observed and directed as follows :- "4. The Court had then directed as follows :- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangali Impex Limited v. Union of India is set aside. The appeals preferred before the Tribunal are restored to their original position. The Tribunal would decide the appeal on merits including the question of jurisdiction of the officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence who had issued show cause notices. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the appeal, i.e. the merits of the claim against the assessees, rather than remitting the matter for fresh overall consideration of the issues to Adjudicating Authority. In the latter event, much time and energy will be spent, and avoidable delay would occur. However, on the other hand, if matter is remitted to the CESTAT for decision on merits, there would be a fair likelihood that the same is resolved in favour of the assessee, in which event the way of further appeal and recourse to appellate proceedings by Revenue would be open. In these circumstances, the view in Davinder Singh (supra) commends acceptance. This Court is of the opinion that the view in other cases are not really precedential, but suggestive of our kind of approach, w....