TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst a common order dated 24.10.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Final Order Nos.42694- 42696/2017, suggesting the following substantial questions of law:- "(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." 2. The respondent(s) herein approached the CESTAT, by filing appeals as against the order dated 12.09.2008 passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sayed Ali (surpa), notification No.4/2011-Cus (NT), dated July 6, 2011 was issued by the CBEC, assigning the functions of the proper officer to various officers (including Additional-Director General, DRI) mentioned in the notification, for the purposes of Section 28 of the Act. Thus, w.e.f. July 6, 2011, the Additional- Director General, DRI was prospectively appointed as 'proper officer' for the purpose of Section 28 of the Customs Act. Hence, from 06.07.2011, ADG-DRI has been empowered to issue demand notice under Section 28. 8. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be mentioned that recently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BSNL vs. UOI vide Writ Petition No.C/4438/2017 and CM No. 19387/2017 has dealt with the identical issue where the notice was also issued by DRI. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has considered the judgment in the case of Mangali Impex vs. UOI which is stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 2016 (339) ELT A 49 (SC). Finally, the Hon'ble High Court has granted liberty to the petitioner by observing that "petitioner is permitted to review the challenge depending on the outcome of the appeals filed by the UOI in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Court in the case of Mangali Impex Limited." 13. By following the ratio laid down....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the official website of the Hon'ble Supreme Court today and further, in view of the fact that the learned Tribunal has clearly protected the interest of both the Revenue as well as the Assessee by directing the Assessing Authority to keep the matter pending and maintain status quo till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides the appeal of the Revenue in the case of Mangali Impex, filed against the decision of the Delhi High Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal, as in our opinion, no question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal, with no order as to costs." 6. However, in the subsequent decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommon Judgment, dated 4- 10-2019, set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored the appeals to the file of the Tribunal to be kept pending and await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was also made clear that the appellant - Department shall not initiate any coercive action against the respondents/assessees. The operative portion of the said Judgment reads as follows: "3. In these appeals, the Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law, (i) as to whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the appeals on the ground that the jurisdiction issue has to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appeal filed against the decision of the High Court of Delhi, in the case of Mangali Impe....