2022 (4) TMI 270 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - power of DRI to issue SCN - proper officer or not - HELD THAT - The CESTAT is directed to decide the appeals on merits including the question of jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)/Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) i.e. whether the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)/DRI is competent to issue the show cause albeit without being influenced by the decision rendered by this Court in Mangli Impex Limited 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT ; the operation of which is stayed by the Supreme Court? Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals under Customs Act, 1962
Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)/Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)

Analysis:

*Issue 1: Delay in filing appeals under Customs Act, 1962*
The appellant filed applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals under section 130(2A) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent did not object to the delay being condoned as the question of law raised in the appeals had already been decided by a coordinate bench of the Court in other matters. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the applications were disposed of.

*Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)/Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)*
The appeals were preferred by the revenue under Section 130 of the Act against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for determining the issue of jurisdiction after the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mangli Impex Limited. The Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the judgment in the Mangli Impex case. Several cases following the Mangli Impex judgment were set aside by coordinate benches of the Court, remanding them for adjudication on merit. The question of law framed in these matters was whether CESTAT was justified in passing an order of remand to decide the jurisdiction issue after the Supreme Court decision. The same question of law arose in the instant appeals. The Court set aside the CESTAT's order and directed it to decide the appeals on merits, including the jurisdiction issue of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)/DRI, without being influenced by the Mangli Impex judgment. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits, leaving it to the CESTAT to decide.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the appeals in the aforementioned terms, closing the pending applications with no order as to costs.