TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(s)/assessee(s) were allowed by way of remand, after following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of BSNL v. Union of India in WP.No.C/4438/2017 and CM No.19387/2017. For better understanding, the relevant passage of the order dated 01.02.2018 passed by the CESTAT, impugned in the first case viz., CMA.No.1175 of 2018, is extracted below: "5. From the record, it appears that the preliminary issue which emerges in the present appeals is regarding the jurisdiction of the DRI officers to issue notice under the Customs Act. The assessee-Respondent had taken a stand that in terms of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Sayed Ali, 2011 (265) 17 (SC), the DRI officers were not proper officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew inserted Section 28 (11) does not empower either the officers of DRI or the DGCEI to issue the SCN or adjudicate for the period prior to 8.4.11. Thus, it is seen that the said order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 10. However, it is further noticed that the said issue was also the subject matter of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Gupta vs. Union of India (2015 (315) ELT 167 (Bom) as also of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vuppalamritha Magnetic Components Limited vs. DRI (Zonal Unit), Chennai (2017 (345) ELT 161 AP) taking a view contrary to the one taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 11. Being conflicting dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f being heard. Till the final decision, the Status quo will be maintained. 14. In the result, the appeals are allowed by way of remand." 2.Now, the common issues involved in all the appeals are as follows: "(i) When jurisdictional High Court Judgments are available upholding the competency of the DRI to issue show cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act 1962, whether the CESTAT is correct in remanding the appeal. (ii) Whether Tribunal is empowered to remand the case without deciding the issues raised therein on the ground that jurisdiction of the officer to issue show cause notice is under dispute." 3.Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this court. 4.Earlier, the issues involved herein have been consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 455 of 2021, wherein, the orders impugned are identical to that of the present cases, it was held by this court as follows: "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 had the power of assessment under Section 17 of the Act and shall be deemed to have been and always had been the proper officers for the purpose of the said Section. In our view, this questio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appeals filed against the decision in Mangali Impex. Therefore, we are inclined to take similar view in these appeals as well. Accordingly, the appeal....