2021 (6) TMI 432

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (hereinafter, referred to as "the Tribunal"), in common final order Nos.40929 - 40940 of 2018, dated 20.03.2018. 2. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: "9. When Sec.28(11) of Customs Act, 1962 envisages that all persons appointed as officers of Customs under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 before the 6th day of July 2011 shall be deemed to have and always had the power of assessment under Section 17 and shall be deemed to have been and always had been the proper officers for the purposes of this Section, whether CESTAT is correct in disputing/questioning the jurisdiction of DRI to issue SCN? 10. In view of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Honourable Supreme Court. However, by the impugned orders, the Tribunal has set aside the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority, namely, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority, namely, the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin. 5. The Revenue is before us contending that the Tribunal ought not to have remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority and it should have taken a decision on the merits of the matter. The Revenue would further contend that Section 28(11) of the Act envisages that all persons appointed as officers of Customs under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act before the sixth day of July, 2011 shall be deemed to have and always ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e decision of the High Court of Delhi, in the case of MANGALI IMPEX V. UNION OF INDIA reported in 2016(335)ELT 605 (Del); (ii)The next question is as to whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the appeals and simultaneously directing status quo to be maintained till a final decision is arrived at. 4.Identical orders were tested for its correctness in the Principal Bench to which one of us (T.S.S.,J,) is a party. After elaborate arguments, the Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the appeal and consequently directing status quo till the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the appropriate procedure that should have been adopted is to keep the appeals pending and await the decision of ....