TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 819
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Intelligence (hereinafter "DRI"). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner had imported 'cashew husk' against various bills of entries and had availed exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 1st June, 2011 (hereinafter "subject notification") between the years 2016 to 2018. In 2018, an investigation was conducted by the DRI officials in respect of the said import and various statements of the Petitioner were also recorded. It is stated that the Petitioner had requested the DRI officials to conduct a consultation in terms of the Pre-Notice Consultation Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter "the Regulations") issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that despite the said r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(c) and (d) above and (f) Any further or other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper as per the facts and circumstances of the case." 4. In the writ petition, notice was issued on 28th December, 2019. Thereafter, the present petition was listed on 13th July, 2022 along with several matters wherein an issue was raised in respect of the decision of the Supreme Court in Canon India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, 2021 SCC Online SC 20 (hereinafter "Canon-I") wherein it was held that the DRI officials are not 'proper officers' under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court was informed that a review petition against the said decision was pending before the Supreme Court. 5. Accordingly, the Petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st Canon-I was considered by the Supreme Court and the decision was passed in Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 titled Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter "Canon-II"). In Canon-II, it has been categorically held that the DRI officials would be 'proper officers' for purposes of Section 28 of the Customs Act. The relevant portion of the judgment in Canon-II reads as under: "168. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that: [...] (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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respective High Court shall grant eight weeks' time to the respective assessee to prefer appropriate appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). d. Where the writ petitions have been disposed of by the High Court and appeal 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 respect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsultation being contrary to the instructions of the CBEC. In view of TARC Recommendation and the decision of Hon'ble HC (supra), the notice requested the Additional Director General, DRI to withdraw the present SCN and forward the case to the proper Authority of Customs through which the goods were imported for Pre Show Cause Notice consultation. [...] 24. The noticee has contended that the SCN has been issued without pre SCN consultations mandated as per various instructions of CBEC/CBIC in compliance of Tax Administration Reform Commission's (TARC) recommendation. I find this argument without any legal backing, as the present show cause notice has not been issued under section 28(1) but has been issued under Section 28(4) of Cu....