TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 754
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filing CWP No. 11565 of 2007, for issuance of direction to respondent No. 2 - Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi, and respondent No. 3 - Joint Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Regional Unit), Ludhiana, to release the documents/files/computer etc., which were taken into possession/custody by preparing a Panchnama in pursuance to the search conducted on 15.09.2005, by claiming that the proceedings initiated by the official respondents is contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, because no legal sanction has been taken before starting the investigation sought to be carried out. Therefore, the seized documents and articles are required to be handed over to the petitioner company as retention of the same is illegal. 3. Petitioner company (in CWP No. 11565 of 2007) is a small scale industry engaged in the manufacture and export of bicycles and its components. It is also member of the Engineering Exporters Association of India, Ludhiana, the Engineering Export Promotion Council and the Federation of Indian Export Organisations, who look after the interests of the small scale industries like the petitioner company. 4. On 15.09.2005,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d filing of reply by the respondents, a co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court passed interim order that no coercive steps will be taken for recovery of the amount which is claimed by the respondents as refund. On 13.12.2007, when these writ petitions came up for hearing, the following order was passed by the co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court:- "C.W.P. Nos. 11553, 11565 and 11680 of 2007 Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate, for the respondents. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that in view of reply filed by respondent No. 4, show cause notice issued by D.R.I. (respondent No. 3), would require to be examined in detail. The matter cannot be disposed of at the motion hearing. Therefore, we admit the writ petition. However, the petitioner shall furnish a surety bond to the satisfaction of Joint Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ludhiana in the sum equivalent to the one mentioned in the show cause notice. Interim directions to continue. A photo-copy of this order be placed on the file of each case. Sd/- (M.M. Kumar) Judge Sd/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 168. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that: (i) DRI officers came to be appointed as the officers of customs vide Notification No. 19/90-Cus (N.T.) dated 26.04.1990 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. This notification later came to be superseded by Notification No. 17/2002 dated 07.03.2002 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, to account for administrative changes. (ii) The petition seeking review of the decision in Canon India (supra) is allowed for the following reasons: a. Circular No. 4/99-Cus dated 15.02.1999 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi which empowered the officers of DRI to issue 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 ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the High Court declined to give retrospective operation to Section 28(11) for the period prior to 08.04.2011 by harmoniously construing it with Explanation 2 to Section 28 of the Act, 1962. We are of the considered view that the decision in Mangali Impex (supra) failed to take into account the policy being followed by the Customs department since 1999 which provides for the exclusion of jurisdiction of all other proper officers once a show cause notice by a particular proper officer is issued. It could be said that this policy provides a sufficient safeguard against the apprehension of the issuance of multiple show cause notices to the same assessee under Section 28 of the Act, 1962. Further, the High Court could not have applied the doctrine of harmonious construction to harmonise Section 28(11) with Explanation 2 because Section 28(11) and Explanation 2 operate in two distinct fields and no inherent contradiction can be said to exist between the two. Therefore, we set aside the decision in Mangali Impex (supra) and approve the view taken by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Sunil Gupta (supra). (v) Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 which, interalia, retrospectively val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). d. Where the writ petitions have been disposed of by the High Court and appeals have been preferred against them which are pending before this Court, they shall be disposed of in accordance with this decision and this Court shall 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 accordance with the observations made in this decision. 169. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the Review Petition No. 400/2021 titled Commissioner of Customs ....