2024 (4) TMI 703

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... facts of the case are as follows: (i) The respondent M/s.Srinidhi Fabrics Private Limited(Importer) have imported "Benninger open width pad-dry continuous dyeing range with micro processor type:Bicoflexl-Al-1RGTH54- 1800 with accessories vide BE No.904056 dated 12.06.2006. The importer availed Countervailing Duty(CVD) exemption of Rs. 81,77,526/- in terms of List 2 of Sl.No.3 of Notification 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 on the ground that the imported dyeing machine is complete with dye kitchen and accessories inasmuch as the complete dye kitchen is in built in the fully automated dyeing machine. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence(DRI), Tuticorin, on intelligence that the imported machine was not complete with dye kitchen and acce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the appellant would further contend that the Tribunal is erred in remanding the case, when the issue regarding jurisdiction of the DRI to issue show-cause notice is sub judice before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Mangali impex Ltd., vs. UOI reported in 2016(335) ELT 605 (Del.), wherein it is observed that 'the Officers of DRI is not competent as proper officer to initiate demand action under Customs Act, 1962'. As against the same, the Department has filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the said impugned order and therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 5. In support of his submissions, the learned counse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 6. In the case of the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. C.M.A.Nos.1372, 1382 and 1383 of 2022 The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and others[CMA.(MD)Nos.375 to 379 of 2018] [2019 (31) G.S.T.L.33 (Mad.)], a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) was a party, had an occasion to test the correctness of an identical order passed by the Tribunal and by a common 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 p....