TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2017 in Jetlite (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (I&G), New Delhi & Ors., wherein it had directed as under: "3. In this connection, we note that similar issues have been dealt with in various cases by the Tribunal recently. It is held that the matters have to be remanded back to the original authority for a decision after the legal issue is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The decision of the Tribunal in one such case vide Final Order No. 53941-53942 of 2017 dated12/06/2017 is reproduced below: "During the course of arguments, the appellant's counsel has raised the preliminary plea that the show cause notice in the instant case was issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. Vs. UOI dated 03.0.5.2016 has observed that the DRI is not competent to issue the show cause notices. Hence, the request is being made to set aside the present proceedings where the notice was issued by the DRI. 2. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Department has justified the notice issued by DRI and made a request to decide the matter on merit. 3. We have heard both the parties at lengt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 167 (Bom) as also of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vuppalamritha Magnetic Components Ltd. vs. DRT (Zonal Unit), Chennai [2017 (345) E.L.T. 161 (AP)], taking a view contrary to the one taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 10. Being conflicting decisions of various High Courts (Supra), finally the matter reached to Hon'ble Supreme Court who on 07/10/2016 granted the stay of operation of the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi, Thus the issue is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2016-TIOL-173-SC-CUS/2016 (339) ELT A 49 (SC)]. 11. It may be mentioned that recently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi ln 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 Ltd. Vs. UOI which is stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 2016 (339) E.L.T. 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 outc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred by Section 28 (4) to recover duties which have escaped assessment is in the nature of an administrative review of an act. The section must therefore construed as conferring the power of such review on the same officer or his successor or any other officer who has been assigned the function of assessment. In other yards., an officer who did the assessment, could only undertake re assessment [which is involved in Section 28 (4)]. 15. It is obvious that the re-assessment and recovery of duties i.e. contemplated by Section 28(4) is by the same authority and not by any superior authority such as Appellate or Revisional Authority. It is, therefore, clear to us that the Additional Director General of DRI was not "the" proper officer to exercise the power under Section 28(4) and the initiation of the recovery proceedings in the present case is without any jurisdiction and liable to be set aside." 6. A review petition was filed against the order in Canon-I vide Review Petition (Civil) No. 400/2021 titled Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Canon India Private Limited in which the Supreme Court held as under: "168. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that: (i) DRI offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in Canon India (supra) based its judgment on two grounds: (1) the show cause notices issued by the DRI officers were invalid for want of jurisdiction; and (2) the show cause notices were issued after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period. In the present judgment, we have only considered and reviewed the decision in Canon India (supra) to the extent that it pertains to the first ground, that is, the jurisdiction of the DRI officers to issue show cause notices under Section 28. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he High Courts directly by way of a writ petition, the respective High Court shall dispose of such 1962 cannot be said to be unconstitutional. It cannot be said that Section 97 fails to cure the defect pointed out in Canon India (supra) writ petitions in accordance with the observations made in this judgment and restore such notices for adjudication by the proper officer under Section 28. b. Where the writ petitions have been disposed of by the respective High Court and appeals have been preferred against such orders which are pending before this Court, they shall be disposed of in accordance with this decision and the show cause notices impugned therein shall be restored for adjudication by the proper officer under Section 28. c. Where the orders-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 28 have been challenged before the High Courts on the ground of maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show cause notices, the 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 hav....