TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 778
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... : Mr.A.P.Srinivas in all CMAs For the Respondent : Mr.Joseph Prabakar in CMA.No.1520 of 2018, Mr.Satish Sundar in CMA.No.2790 of 2018, Mr.K.Govi Ganesan in CMA.Nos.169 and 171 of 2019, Mr. Allwin Godwin in CMA.Nos.1367 and 1541 of 2019, Mr.S.Jaikumar in CMA.Nos.1503, 2071 and 2072 of 2019 COMMON JUDGMENT R. MAHADEVAN, J. Since the issues involved in all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are one and the same, they are taken up together for hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2.All these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the appellant / Revenue against the separate orders dated 16.06.2017, 17.08.2017, 24.08.2017, 05.09.2017, 11.10.2017, 24.10.2017 and 28.02.2018 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts, the importer's counsel has raised the preliminary plea that the show-cause notice in these cases was issued by the DRI. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mangali Impex vs. UOI dated 03.05.2016 has observed that the officers of DRI is not competent as proper officers to initiate demand action under Customs Act, 1962. Hence, the request is being made to set aside the present proceedings where the notice was issued by the DRI. On the other hand, Authorised Representative for the Department has justified the order passed by Commissioner of Customs and made a request to decide the matter on merit. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. From the record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficers to various DRI officers with retrospective effect. 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 came 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 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. However, it is further noticed that the said issue was also the subject mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Delhi in the case of BSNL (supra) as well as by considering totality of facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the availability of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Mangali Impex and then on merits of the case but by providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Till the final decision, the Status quo will be maintained. In the result, both the appeals are allowed by way of remand." Aggrieved over the same, the Revenue is before this court with these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 6.Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this court. 7.Earlier, the issues ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.2021 in CMA.(MD)Nos.433 to 437 & 439 to 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 purpos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....L.T.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 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appeals filed against the decision in Mangali Impex. Therefore, we ....