TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ground that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers cannot be considered as "proper officers" for issuing the show cause notice. Reliance was almost entirely placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Canon India Private Limited AIR 2021 SC 1699. 4. In addition, the Petitioner has also challenged Note 3 in the Notification No.125/2010/Cus dated 16 December 2010 has been ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 5. This petition was kept pending because Review Petition No. 400 of 2021, filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, sought to review the decision in Canon India Private Limited (supra). 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Act, 1962 as well as Notification No.44/2011 dated 06.07.2011 which assigned the functions of the proper officer for the purposes of Sections 17 and 28 of the Act, 1962 respectively to the officers of DRI were not brought to the notice of this Court during the proceedings in Canon India (supra). In other words, the judgment in Canon India (supra) was rendered without looking into the circular and the notification referred to above thereby seriously affecting the correctness of the same. b. The decision in Canon India (supra) failed to consider the statutory scheme of Sections 2(34) and 5 of the Act, 1962 respectively. As a result, the decision erroneously recorded the finding that since DRI o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....We clarify that the observations made by this Court in Canon India (supra) on the aspect of limitation have neither been considered nor reviewed by way of this decision. Thus, this decision will not disturb the findings of this Court in Canon India (supra) insofar as the issue of limitation is concerned. (iv) The Delhi High Court in Mangali Impex (supra) observed that Section 28 (11) could not be said to have cured the defect pointed out in Sayed Ali (supra) as the possibility of chaos and confusion would continue to subsist despite the introduction of the said section with retrospective effect. In view of this, the High Court declined to give retrospective operation to Section 28 (11) for the period prior to 08.04.2011 by harmoniously co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly to the questions raised in the petition seeking review of the judgment in Canon India (supra). The challenge to the Finance Act, 2022 on grounds other than those dealt with herein, if any, are kept open. (vi) Subject to the observations made in this judgment, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Commissionerates of Customs (Preventive), Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence and Commissionerates of Central Excise and other similarly situated officers are proper officers for the purposes of Section 28 and are competent to issue show cause notice thereunder. Therefore, any challenge made to the maintainability of such show cause notices issued by this particular class of officers, on the ground of want of jur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l grant eight weeks' time to the respective assessee to prefer appropriate appeals before the CESTAT. e. Where the orders of CESTAT have been challenged before this Court or the respective High Court on the ground of maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show cause notices, this Court or the respective High Court shall dispose of such appeals or writ petitions in accordance with the ruling in this judgment and restore such notices to the CESTAT for hearing the matter on merits. f. Where appeals against the orders-in-original involving issues pertaining to the jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show cause notices under Section 28 are pending before the CESTAT, they shall now be decided in acc....