Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT - 2016 (335) E.L.T. 605 (Del.) - Proper officer - Juridiction to issue Show Cause Notice - Constitutional validity and effect of Section 28(11) of the Customs Act, 1962 - inserted by the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 (“Validation Act, 2011”) with effect from 16th September 2011 - In terms of Section 28(11) of the Act, all persons appointed as Customs Officers under Section 4(1) of the Act prior to 6th July 2011 “shall be deemed to have and alway .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for a period prior to 8th April 2011 if, in fact, there was no proper assigning of the functions of reassessment or assessment in favour of such officers who issued such SCNs since they were not “proper officers” for the purposes of Section 2(34) of the Act and further because Explanation 2 to Section 28 as presently enacted makes it explicit that such non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refund prior to 8th April 2011 would continue to be governed only by Section 28 as it stood prior to that date .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat if the administrative chaos as envisaged by the Supreme Court in Sayed Ali (supra) should not come about, there cannot be any duplicating and/or overlapping of jurisdiction of the officers. It would have to be ensured through proper co-ordination and administrative instructions issued by the CBEC that once a SCN is issued specifying the adjudicating officer to whom it is answerable, then that adjudication officer, subject to such officer being a 'proper officer' to whom the function of asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e clearly without jurisdiction since the ADG, DRI could not have exercised such power for a period prior to 8th April 2011. Further in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 28 as has presently been enacted with effect from 8th April 2011, for the period prior to 8th April 2011, Section 28 of the Act as it stood prior to that date will apply and not the new Section 28 of the Act. That being the position, the proceedings pursuant to the above SCNs issued by the ADG, DRI regarding non-levy, short-levy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the Act at the time he issued the SCN Held that:- the Department cannot seek to rely on Section 28(11) of the Act to validate the SCN issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, SIIB to the Petitioner on 31st October 2003. As has already been held by the Court, Section 28(11) of the Act cannot validate SCNs or proceedings pursuant thereto in relation to non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refund for a period prior to 8th April 2011 if such SCNs have been issued or proceedings conducted by o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

SCN as he was not a “proper officer” within the meaning of Section 2(34) of the Act. Counter affidavit filed where it is denied that at the time when the SCN was issued i.e. 30th April 2010, the ADG, DRI was not assigned the function of assessment under Section 17 and reassessment under Section 28 of the Act and was, therefore, not a “proper officer” for the purposes of Section 2(34) of the Act - Held that:- the recourse to Section 28(11) of the Act as introduced with effect from 8th July 2011 c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the insertion of sub-section 11 to Section 28 - pursuant to the putting on hold various consignments of woollen carpets sought to be exported by the Petitioner - Held that:- it is clear that in relation to the events that took place prior to 8th April 2011 no SCN could have been issued to the Petitioner by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) who admittedly is not a “proper officer” in terms of the Section 2(34) of the Act. Section 28(11) of the Act cannot be resorted to for validating the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Commissioner of Customs (Import & General) for the purposes of adjudication under Section 4 of the Act and consequent order dated 16th December 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import & General) - At the time when the SCN was issued to the Petitioner by the DRI there was no assignment of the functions of assessment or reassessment under the Act in favour of the DRI in so far as it pertains to events that occurred prior to 8th April 2011 - Held that:- Section 28(11) of the Act cannot .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f customs duty for the period 28th January 2011 to 28th February 2013 - Held that:- for the reasons already mentioned, the said SCN and all the proceedings consequent thereto for the period from 28th January 2011 up to 8th April 2011 cannot be sustained in law and are hereby quashed. The adjudication proceedings as regards further period beyond 8th April 2011 will proceed in accordance with law. - Validity of SCN dated 31st October 2008 issued by the ADG, DRI, Delhi and Circular No. 44/2011- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for the reasons already discussed, the impugned SCN dated 31st October 2008 and the Circular dated 23rd September 2011 are hereby quashed. - Validity of SCN dated 14th March 2011 issued by the ADG, DRI - alleged imports made through the ICD, Tughlakabad during the period prior thereto - Held that:- in light of the above discussion, with the ADG, DRI not being the “proper officer” under Section 2(34) of the Act at the time when the SCN was issued, Section 28(11) of the Act cannot be referred .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iod 27th May 2009 to 8th April 2011, it cannot be sustained in law since during the said period the ADG, DRI had no power of assessment or reassessment. To that extent the impugned SCN and all proceedings pursuant thereto for the period prior to 8th April 2011 are hereby quashed. However, for the period subsequent to 8th April 2011 the proceedings may go on in accordance with law. - Validity of SCN dated 2nd April 2009 issued by the DRI and for declaring Section 28(11) of the Act to be const .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Held that:- the ADG, DRI who issued the SCN was admittedly not a “proper officer” for the purposes of Section 2(34) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned SCN dated 2nd December 2013 and all proceedings consequent thereto to the extent they pertain to the period prior to 8th April 2011 are hereby quashed. The proceedings for the subsequent period may go on in accordance with law. - Validity of SCN dated 2nd December 2013 issued by the ADG, DRI - Held that:- the impugned SCN are hereby quashed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

edings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. - Validity of SCN dated 7th November 2013 issued by the ADG, DRI - Imports of “Narrow Woven Fabrics” from China during the period 8th November 2008 to 30th November 2010, i.e., a period prior to 8th April 2011 - Held that:- for the reasons already discussed, the said SCN dated 7th November 2013 and all proceedings consequent thereto are hereby quashed. - Validity of SCN dated 9th June 2014 issued by the ADG, DRI - Invokation of Section 124 of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(Machined) from ICD, Tughlakabad and CFS, Patparganj - availing higher DEPB credit for the period prior to 8th April 2011 - Held that:- for the reasons already mentioned, the impugned SCN and all proceedings consequent thereto stand hereby quashed. - Validity of SCN dated 20th November 2014 issued by the ADG, DRI - Section 124 of the Customs Act read with Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Import of Color Picture Tubes in the year 2010 - Held that:- for the reasons already mention .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ustoms - Searches were conducted in the residential premises of the Petitioner - allegedly mis-declaring and undervaluing the import in connivance with the various Registrars of Newspapers in India - Demand of duty - appeal filed before the CESTAT against the said order is still pending and the CESTAT has required the Petitioner to deposit the 10% duty amount as a pre-deposit - Held that:- the SCN was issued by the ADG, DRI who at the time of issuance of the said SCN had not been assigned functi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

unsel with Mr Bhavishya Sharma, Advocate for Customs W.P.(C) 8196/2013 & CM 17295/2013, W.P.(C) 211/2014 & CM 389/2014, W.P.(C) 863/2014 & CM 1731/2014 , W.P.(C) 3803/2014 & CM 7658/2014, W.P.(C) 5262/2014, W.P.(C) 5877/2014 & CM 14409/2014, W.P.(C) 4162/2015 & CM 10559/2015, W.P.(C) 11285/2015 , W.P.(C) 11853/2015 & CM 31504/2015 , W.P.(C) 11854/2015 & CM 31506/2015 , W.P.(C) 563/2016 & CM 2353/2016, W.P.(C) 1185/2013 & CM 2240/2013, W.P.(C) 7383/2013 &am .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ESH TRIPATHI M/S LAKSHMAN OVERSEAS AND ORS M/S PACE INTERNATIONAL & ANR. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED SATYAM MARKETING THROUGH: ITS PROPRIETOR MANOJ SABOO @ MANOJ MAHESHWARI HANSRAJ BHATIA & CO. THROUGH: ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI SANJEEV BHATIA M/S. J.R. INTERNATIONAL BHAGWATI COMPONENTS MFG.CO. THROUGH: ITS DIRECTOR MR. SURJIT SINGH JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. Introduction 1. The common question in this batch of matters pertains to the constitutional validity of Section 28 (11) of the Cust .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sion would take effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court of law, tribunal or other authority. However, this amendment adversely impacts the Petitioners herein in that it seeks to validate the show-cause notices ( SCNs ) issued prior to 6th July 2011 by not only officers of the Customs but also officers of the Commissionerates of Customs (Preventive), Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence ( DRI ), Directorate General of Central .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Sayed Ali (2011) 3 SCC 537, in fact, it does not do so. The further submission is that for the period prior to 6th July 2011 the decision of the Supreme Court in Sayed Ali (supra) would still apply and even in terms of Section 28 (11) of the Act the offices of the Commissionerates of Customs (Preventive), DRI, DGCEI would not have jurisdiction to continue proceedings in relation to the SCNs already issued or issue fresh SCNs for the period prior to 6th July 20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under this Act, means the Officer of Customs who is assigned those functions by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs. 8. Section 4 of the Act talks of appointment of officers of customs. It states that the Central Board of Excise and Customs may appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be officers of customs . The concept of proper officer becomes relevant for the purpose of assessment of duty under Section 17, provisional assessment of duty under Section 18, the exercise of the power to iss .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

examine, in terms of Section 2 (34) of the Act, whether such proper officer has been assigned those functions by the CBEC or the Commissioner of Customs. Section 28 of the Act as it stood prior to the recasting of the entire Section 28 by the Validation Act, 2011, reads as under: 28. Notice for payment of duties, interest, etc. (1) When any duty has not been levied or has been short-levied or erroneously refunded, or when any interest payable has not been paid, part paid or erroneously refunded, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

should not pay the amount specified in the notice: Provided that where any duty has been levied or has been short-levied or the interest has not been charged or has been part paid or the duty or interest has been erroneously refunded by reason of collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts by the importer or the exporter or the agent or employee of the importer or exporter, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words "one year" and "s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d or has been short-levied or erroneously refunded or the interest payable thereon has not been paid, part paid or erroneously refunded is more than one crore rupees, no notice under this sub-section shall be served except with the prior approval of the Chief Commissioner of Customs. Explanation : Where the service of the notice is stayed by an order of a court, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the aforesaid period of one year or six months or five years, as the case may be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erest has not been paid or has been part paid or the duty or interest has been erroneously refunded by reason of collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, where it is possible to do so, shall determine the amount of such duty or the interest, within a period of one year: and (2) in any other case, where it is possible to do so, shall determine the amount of duty which has not been levied or has been short-levied or erroneously refunded or the interest payable which has not b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

terest, as the case may be, and inform the proper officer of such payment in writing, who, on receipt of such information, shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) in respect of the duty or the interest so paid: Provided that the proper officer may determine the amount of short-payment of duty or interest, if any, which in his opinion has not been paid by such person and, then, the proper officer shall proceed to recover such amount in the manner specified in this section, and the period .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot apply to any case where the duty or the interest had become payable or ought to have been paid before the date on which the Finance Bill 2001 receives the assent of the President. (3) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the expression "relevant date" means,- (a) in a case where duty is not levied, or interest is not charged, the date on which the proper officer makes an order for the clearance of the goods; (b) in a case where duty is provisionally assessed under section 18, the da .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(1) of the Act, appointing Collector of Customs (Preventive), to be the Collector of Customs for Bombay, Thane and Kolaba Districts in the State of Maharashtra. The decision in Sayed Ali 11. At this stage, it is necessary to examine in some detail the decision of the Supreme Court in Sayed Ali (supra). The facts of the case were that Respondent No. 1 was a partner of Respondent No. 2 firm, M/s. Handloom Carpet, which was engaged in the business of carpet manufacture and export. The firm was char .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(d) of the Act. This was followed by an adjudication order being passed on 3rd February 1993 by the same Officer who issued the SCN, i.e., Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive), confirming the demands raised in the SCN. Aggrieved by the above order, the Respondents preferred an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). By an order dated 14th December 1993 the Collector of Customs (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the Respondents by holding that since the subject matter involved a dem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the sum of ₹ 5,07,274 should not be levied in terms of Section 28 (1) of the Act by involving the extended period of limitation. Penalties under Sections 112 (a) and 112 (b) (i) and (ii) of the Act were also proposed. 14. In reply to the said SCN, the Respondents questioned the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs (Preventive) on the ground that the jurisdiction thereof vested in the Commissioner by virtue of Notification No. 251/83 which was more specific and limited in nature. It .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on of cases or smuggling including commercial frauds is thus (sic) competent to investigate and adjudicate the case. 15. The Collector of Customs (Preventive) confirmed the demand of duty in the sum of ₹ 5,07,274 under Section 28 (1) of the Act. The Collector also ordered confiscation of two consignments of dyes, sulphur blue and sulphur blue green. Aggrieved by the above order, the Respondents went in appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ( CEGAT ). A pre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the CEGAT, the Customs Department went in appeal before the Supreme Court. The plea of the Department before the Supreme Court was that once the Commissioner (Preventive) had been appointed as Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay by virtue of Notifications Nos. 250/83 and 251/83, issued by the Central Government under Section 4 of the Act, the Commissioner (Preventive) became proper officer in terms of Section 2 (34) of the Act and was, therefore, competent to issue an SCN under Section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l by the Supreme Court in CCE & Customs v. Manohar Bros. (Capacitors) (2011) 3 SCC 580. 17. The Supreme Court, after analysing the relevant provisions of the Act including the definition of proper officer under Section 2 (34) of the Act, observed as under: It is clear from a mere look at the provision that only such officers of Customs who have been assigned specific functions would be proper officers in terms of Section 2 (34) of the Act. Specific entrustment of function by either the Board .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

etent to issue notice under Section 28 of the Act. Any other reading of Section 28 would render the provisions of Section 2 (34) of the Act otiose inasmuch as the test contemplated under Section 2 (34) of the Act is that of specific conferment of such functions. 21. Moreover, if the Revenue s contention that once territorial jurisdiction is conferred, the Collector of Customs (Preventive) becomes a proper officer in terms of Section 28 of the Act is accepted, it would lead to a situation of utte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cleared for home consumption, will have the jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 28 of the Act. 18. The Supreme Court observed that nothing has been brought on record to show that the Collector of Customs (Preventive) who had issued SCN was assigned the functions under Section 28 of the Act as proper officer either by the Board or the Collector/Commissioner of Customs. It was accordingly observed as under: We are convinced that Notifications Nos. 250-Cus. And 251-Cus. both dated 27th Augu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er to act as proper officer was Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and not sub-section (34) of Section 2 of the Act. The Supreme Court observed that Sections 4 and 5 merely authorise the Board to appoint officers of Customs and confer on them the powers and duties to be exercised/discharged by them, but for the purpose of Section 28 of the Act, an officer of Customs has to be designated as proper officer by assigning the function of levy and collection of duty, by the Board or the Commissioner of Custo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e functions to the specific officers of the Customs to enable him to act as proper officer for various purposes under the Act, it became necessary for the central government to clarify the legal position. CBEC Instruction 22. Immediately after the decision of the Supreme Court in Sayed Ali (supra) on 18th February 2011, instructions were issued on 15th April 2011 by the CBEC to all officers of the Customs Preventive and DRI inter alia as under: 2. In view of Hon ble Supreme Court order, while ot .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be got issued afresh by jurisdictional Commissionerates in supersession of the earlier show cause notices and in the light of the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the matter. 3. As for the cases which would be hit by limitation if notices are issued afresh now, necessary legal options are being explored. 4. Difficulty faced, if any, may be brought to notice of the Board. Section 28 amended by Finance Act 2011 23. On 8th April 2011, the Finance Act, 2011 was notified in the Official Gazette. It .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the reasons of collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts,- (a) the proper officer shall, within one year from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty or interest which has not been so levied or which has been short-levied or short-paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice; (b) the person chargeable with the duty or interest, may pay before service of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

serve any notice under clause (a) of that sub-section in respect of the duty or interest so paid or any penalty leviable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder in respect of such duty or interest. (3) Where the proper officer is of the opinion that the amount paid under clause (b) of sub-section (1) falls short of the amount actually payable, then, he shall proceed to issue the notice as provided for in clause (a) of that sub-section in respect of such amount which falls .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

yee of the importer or exporter, the proper officer shall, within five years from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with duty or interest which has not been so levied or which has been so short-levied or short-paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice. (5) Where any duty has not been levied or has been short-levied or the interest has not been charged or has been part-paid or t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e notice or the duty so accepted by that person, within thirty days of the receipt of the notice and inform the proper officer of such payment in writing. (6) Where the importer or the exporter or the agent or the employee of the importer or the exporter, as the case may be, has paid duty with interest and penalty under sub-section (5), the proper officer shall determine the amount of duty or interest and on determination, if the proper officer is of the opinion- (i) that the duty with interest .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(a) of sub-section (1) in respect of such amount which falls short of the amount actually payable in the manner specified under that sub-section and the period of one year shall be computed from the date of receipt of information under sub-section (5). (7) In computing the period of one year referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) or five years referred to in sub-section (4), the period during which there was any stay by an order of a court or tribunal in respect of payment of such duty or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) of sub- section (1); (b) within one year from the date of notice in respect of cases falling under sub-section (4). (10) Where an order determining the duty is passed by the proper officer under this section, the person liable to pay the said duty shall pay the amount so determined along with the interest due on such amount whether or not the amount of interest is specified separately. Explanation 1 - For the purposes of this section, "relevant date" means,- (a) in a case where duty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t-levy or erroneous refund before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President, shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Section 28 as it stood immediately before the date on which such assent is received. 24. The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Finance Bill, 2011 stated that Section 28 is being substituted so as to make provisions more coherent and clear as also to harmonize the demand period in normal cases to one year. What is important as fa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

amended, the time period is five years . 25. The concept of relevant date has been elaborated in Explanation 1. This is more or less conforms to the erstwhile Section 28 (3) of the Act. What is new as far as the recasting of Section 28 is concerned, is that Explanation 2 begins with the expression For the removal of doubts . It categorically states that for any non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refund prior to the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives assent of the President, it should c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

In Exercise or the powers conferred by sub-Section (34 of Section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby assigns the functions of the proper officer to the following officers mentioned in column (2) of the Table below, for the purposes of Section 17 and 28 of the said Act, namely: Table Sl. No. Designation of the officers (1) (2) 1. Additional Director Generals, Additional Directors or Joint Directors, Deputy Directors or Assistant Directors in t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ral Excise, Deputy Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners of Central Excise. The Validation Act 2011 27. The above Notification did not clarify the status of SCNs already issued prior to 6th July 2011. On 2nd August 2011 the Customs (Amendment and Validation), Act, 2011 was introduced in Parliament proposing to add another sub-section 11 after sub-section 10 of Section 28 of the Act. 28. The Statement of Objects and Reasons ( SOR ) appended to the said Bill explained the rationale behind inser .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the powers of a proper officer for issue of a notice for the demand of duty. The Hon ble Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Customs versus Sayed Ali and Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4294-4295 of 2002) held that only a customs officer who has been specifically assigned the duties of assessment and re-assessment in the jurisdiction area is competent to issue a notice for the demand of duty as a proper officer. As such the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) who has not been assigned the functi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Revenue Intelligence and others, who were not specifically assigned the functions of assessment and re-assessment of customs duty may be construed as invalid. The result would be huge loss of revenue to the exchequer and disruption in the revenue already mobilized in cases already adjudicated. However, having regard to the urgency of the matter, the Government issued notification on 6th July, 2011 specifically declaring certain officers as proper officers for the aforesaid purposes. 3. In the c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assignment as proper officer was issued or not. It is, therefore, purposed to amend the Customs Act, 1962 retrospectively and to validate anything done or any action taken under the said Act in pursuance of the provisions of the said Act at all material times irrespective of issuance of any specific assignment on 6th July, 2011. 4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects. 29. Section 28 (11) of the Act reads as under: (11) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

judgment, decree or order of any Court of law, tribunal or other authority reveals the legislative intent to overcome the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sayed Ali (supra). The second aspect is that the legislature intended the amendment to be retrospective and introduced the words shall be deemed to have been and always had been the proper officers . The SOR also makes it clear that the purpose was to amend the Act retrospectively and to validate anything done or any action taken under the sa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d Central Excise Commissionerates were assigned the functions of the proper officer and the amendment to Section 28 of the Act settled the issue of validity of SCNs issued by them. The only additional clarification was that the said officers would not exercise authority in terms of Section 28 (8) of the Act. It was clarified that in other words, there shall be no change in the present practice and officers of DRI and DGCEI shall not adjudicate the Show Cause Notices issued under Section 28 of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

th July 2011, i.e., from 1st April 2008 onwards. In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 441 of 2013 (Mangali Impex Limited) the Court passed the following order on 28th January 2013: The main issue sought to be raised in this writ petition is that the show cause notice dated 31st October 2003 issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (SIIB), Special Intelligence & Investigation Branch who, according to the Petitioner, was not the proper o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f Section 28 as they stood immediately before that date would continue to operate. In the present case, the show cause notice was issued way back in 2003, at which point of time sub-section (11) of Section 28 was not in the statute book. There is some confusion to when Explanation 2 was introduced in the statute book and as to whether Explanation 2 has at all been passed by Parliament or not. The learned counsel for the Respondents wishes to take instructions in this regard. Renotify on 4th Febr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(11). However, it did contain Explanation 2 after sub-section (10) of Section 28 of the said Act. Prima facie, there appears to be an apparent conflict between Explanation 2 and sub-section (11) which was introduced subsequently. The conflict arises because sub-section (11) is a non-obstante provision, but is non-obstante in relation to any judgment, decree or order of any court of law, tribunal or other authority and not in relation to the other provisions of the Act which includes Explanation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e adjudication order may be passed by the adjudicating authority. However, that order shall not be given effect to until further directions from this Court. 34. Similar interim orders permitting the proceedings to go on but that the adjudication shall not be given effect to, were passed in each of the writ petitions. 35. On behalf of the Petitioners, arguments have been addressed by Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned counsel, Mr. C. Hari Shankar and Mr. Arshad Hidyatullah, learned Senior counsel, M .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

isions of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Limited v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 2 SCC 449 and State of Haryana v. Karnal Co-op Farmers Society Limited 1993 (2) SCC 363, it was submitted that Section 28 of the Act confers such powers of the proper officer to multiple sets of customs officers without any territorial or pecuniary jurisdictional limit and for which reason the utter chaos and confusion envisaged by the Supreme Court in Sayed Ali (supra) would still subsist. It .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lso to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Balaji Rice Company v. CTO (1984) 55 SCT 292 (AP) and Kerala High Court in Sivaramakrishnan v. State of Kerala 1995 (1) ILR 92 (Ker). (iii) Section 28 (11) would be applicable only in respect of short-levy or non-levy or erroneous refund arising on or after 8th April 2011. It is submitted that the new Section 28 substitutes the previous Section 28 of the Act with effect from 8th April 2011. Therefore, Section 28 (11) would also be taken .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that any non-levy or short-levy prior to 8th April 2011 would continue to be governed by the provisions of Section 28 as it stood immediately prior to 8th April 2011. (iv) Mere deeming of all the officers of the customs to be prior officers without validating the SCNs issued prior to 8th April 2011 would not validate such SCNs by merely the amending Section 28 of the Act. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa 2004 8 SCC 599, it was submitted that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

any proper officer . Relying on the decisions in Consolidated Coffee Limited v. Coffee Board (1980) 3 SCC 358 and Shri Ishar Alloys Steels Limited v. Jayaswals Neco Limited (2001) 3 SCC 609, it was submitted that the use of the definite article the is very significant as opposed to an or any . Only those officers who have been assigned the functions of the proper officer for the purposes of Section 17 (Assessment of bill of entry) will be considered as the proper officer for Section 28 of the A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

with the Bombay High Court in Sunil Gupta v. Union of India 2015 (315) ELT 167 (Bom.) upholding the constitutional validity of Section 28 (11) of the Act and accepting the plea of the Department that by virtue of insertion of Section 28 (11), the SCNs issued prior to 8th April 2011 by the DRI, the notices issued by officers of the DRI, the DGCEI etc., i.e., officers who may not have been expressly assigned the functions of proper officers under Section 2 (34) of the Act, stood validated. It was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2011. It is accordingly submitted that Section 28 (11) would override the Explanation below sub-section 10 of Section 28 of the Act to the extent that the SCN was issued prior to 8th April 2011. As far as actions now taken, after the insertion of Section 28 (11) of the Act, since it is a deeming provision, it empowers the officers of the DRI, DGCEI etc. to issue SCNs even for the period prior to 8th April 2011 subject to the time limits under Section 28 (4) of the Act being adhered to. 39. It w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

an make a retrospective legislation after curing the defects that led to their invalidation in the first place. A validation Act can be enacted to retrospectively negate the effect of the judgments and orders of competent courts provided the validating legislation removes the cause of invalidity or the basis that had led to those decisions. It was submitted that inadvertent defects in statutes should be permitted to be corrected by the legislature through the device of small repairs . There is n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on in determining the constitutional validity of a retrospective legislation." 41. It is submitted by the Respondents that a combined reading of Explanation 2 to Section 28 of the Act and the retrospective amendment brought about by Validation Act, 2011 would reveal that all the past cases where the SCN had been issued under Section 28 of the Act by any officer appointed as officer of Customs, prior to 6th July 2011 stands validated. The plea of conflict between Explanation 2 to Section 28 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Act are totally different from assigning the power of issuing an SCN to a Customs Officer under Section 4 of the Act. Analysis of Section 28 (11) of the Act 43. The first issue is to be considered whether Section 28 (11) cures the defects pointed out by the Supreme Court in Sayed Ali (supra). In examining this issue, the Court would like to examine whether the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Sunil Gupta (supra) is required to be followed by the Court. 44. A perusal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ns in the statute even after the insertion of Section 28 (11) of the Act which seeks to deal with the very same period, i.e., the period prior to the date on which the Finance Act, 2011 receives the assent of the President i.e., 8th April 2011. Although what is intended to be done by the legislature, as is evident from the SOR appended to the Validation Act, 2011, is to validate the notices issued prior to 8th April 2011, the opening words of sub-section (11) of Section 28 is a non-obstante clau .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

12 of the Act opens with the words except as otherwise provided in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, duties of customs ... Section 28A opens with the words notwithstanding anything contained in this Act . As far as Section 28AA is concerned, it begins with a non-obstante clause that encompasses not only any judgment, decree, order, or direction but in any provision of this Act or the rules thereunder . It is therefore, conscious that the decision taken by the legislature w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rroneous refunded prior to 8th April 2011 will continue to be governed by the unamended Section 28 of the Act as it stood prior to 8th April 2011, notwithstanding enactment of Section 28 (11) of the Act. Considering that Explanation 2 opens the words For the removal of doubts the Court cannot presume a legislative intent to the contrary. 47. Although it was repeatedly stressed by learned counsel for the Respondents that Section 28 (11) and Explanation 2 to Section 28 can be harmonized and that f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to make it override Explanation 2 to Section 28 of the Act. The words this section appearing in Section 28 (11) can only mean Section 28 as newly enacted. However, it does not in any manner affect Explanation 2 to Section 28 of the Act as far as the period prior to 8th April 2011 is concerned. In other words, the newly enacted Section 28(11) would not empower the officers of the DRI and DGCEI to either proceed to adjudicate SCNs already issued by them for the period prior to 8th April 2011 or t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dealt with appointment of officials of the DRI as Customs Officers for the area mentioned in column 1 of the Notification which referred to the different states in India or to the whole of India. On the basis of the above Notification and the subsequent Notification dated 6th July 2011, the Bombay High Court negatived the plea that the Central Government and the CBEC have not entrusted or assigned the functions of the proper officer to the Additional Director of DRI . It held that the Notificat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

roceeds on the basis that Section 28 (11) validates all actions taken prior to 8th April 2011 and that Section 28 (11) is a valid exercise of legislative power. 50. In dealing with Explanation 2, the Bombay High Court observed: the Explanation 2 clarifies that they will proceed in terms of the un-amended provision. The position dealt with by insertion of Section 28(11) is distinct and that is about competence of the officer . There was no attempt made at reconciling the contradictory positions e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 17, Explanation 2 to Section 28 did not. It merely talks about the subject matter namely non-levy, short levy or erroneous refund. According to him, for determining which officer is competent to undertake the exercise in such a situation, reference has to be made necessarily only to Section 28(11) which opens with a non-obstante clause. It talks of persons appointed as Customs Officers even prior to 6th July 2011. Therefore, even the issue of non-levy, short levy or erroneous refund which aro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

specifically talks of an officer of Customs being assigned functions by the CBEC or by the Commissioner of Customs. If all officers of the Customs appointed as such prior to 6th July 2011 are deemed to be proper officers , then the administrative chaos that is likely to result, as was pointed out in the Sayed Ali case, would persist. The powers conferred would be overbroad since it would be without any territorial or pecuniary jurisdictional limit. This type of a validation, therefore, does not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ere should have been a deemed assignment of that power. Clearly, such power of assessment has to be in relation to a territorial or pecuniary jurisdictional limit. The scope of the Validation Act 54. In this context a brief discussion of what a validation legislation is expected to do is required to be examined. It is perfectly possible and valid for the legislature to remove the defect pointed out by the Court which examines and pronounces on the constitutional validity of a statute. In The Ass .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act, 1966 after removing the defect pointed out while striking down an earlier version of the Act was held to be not unreasonable. 55. However, what is essential is that the defect pointed out must be totally removed. In Krishnamurthi and Co. v. State of Madras (1973) 1 SCC 75 it was explained as under: It is axiomatic that the Government needs revenue to carry on the administration and fulfil its obligation to the citizens. For that purpose it resorts to taxation. The total amount needed is ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

her infirmity, the Legislature quite often passes an amending and validating Act. The object of such an enactment is to remove and rectify the defect in phraseology or lacuna of other nature and also to validate the proceedings, including realisation of tax, which have taken place in pursuance of the infirmity. Such an amending and validating Act in the very nature of things has a retrospective operation. Its aim is to effectuate and carry out the object for which the earlier principal Act had b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Act themselves should be deemed to have been in existence from a particular date in the past and thus to validate the actions taken in the past as if the provisions concerned were in existence from the earlier date, the Legislature makes the said intention clear by the specific language of the validating Act. It is open for the Legislature to change the very basis of the provisions retrospectively and to validate the actions on the changed basis. 57. In Bakhtawar Trust v. M.D. Narayan (2003) 5 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

led to their invalidation and thus makes ineffective judgments of competent courts declaring the invalidity. It is also well settled that a validating Act may even make ineffective judgments and orders of competent courts provided it, by retrospective legislation, removes the cause of invalidity or the basis that had led to those decisions. ... 25. ...[I]t is open to the legislature to alter the law retrospectively, provided the alteration is made in such a manner that it would no more be possi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers (2003) 3 SCC 57, emphasis was laid on harmonising two seemingly conflicting provisions in order to avoid any inconsistency or repugnancy either within a section or between two different sections of the same statute. This was a further development of the principles of harmonising the two conflicting provisions explained in Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain AIR 1997 SC 1006 as under: "(1) It is the duty of the Courts to avoid a head on cla .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ach other, they should be so interpreted that, is possible, effect should be given to both. This is the essence of the rule of harmonious construction . (4) The Courts have also to keep in mind that an interpretation which reduces one of the provisions as a dead letter or useless lumber is not harmonious construction. (5) To harmonise is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose . 60. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Thirumagal Mills Ltd. (1972) 1 SCC 176, it was explained as under: .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e re-enacted law. The Legislature can give its own meaning and interpretation of the law under which the tax was collected and by legislative that makes the new meaning binding upon the Courts. None of these methods has been adopted in the present case. See Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality . 61. Keeping the above principles in mind when Section 28 has been re-casted by Act 8 of 2011 with effect from 8th April 2011 read with Section 28(11) which was introduced by the Custo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ercome the defect pointed out in the decision of the Supreme Court in the Sayed Ali case, Section 28 (11) of the Act does not state that it would operate notwithstanding anything contained either in the Act or any other Act for the time being in force. In other words, the legislature has not made it explicit that Section 28(11) would prevail notwithstanding anything contained in Explanation 2 to Section 28 of the Act. (ii) On the contrary, Explanation 2 which, as it presently stands, appears aft .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ermining not only the procedure but the very basis on which a non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refund occurring prior to 8th April 2011 should be dealt with. (iv) Prior to 8th April 2011 and even subsequent thereto, only a proper officer who has been assigned specific functions by the CBEC or the Commissioner as amended by Section 2(34) of the Act could undertake the task of non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refund. Therefore, for any non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refund prior to 8th April .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

6th July 2011 that such deemed proper officer can be said to have been given retrospective power to deal with non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refund for any period subsequent to 8th April 2011, i.e., the date on which Section 28(11) read with Explanation 2 could be said to have come into force. Section 28 (11) gives untrammelled power 62. There is merit in the contention that Section 28(11) is overbroad in as much as it confers jurisdiction on a plurality of officers on the same subject matter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

powered to exercise powers of assessment over the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. In other words, the powers are not restrictive to serve local areas in respect of which under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, they could exercise powers. It was in the above context the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that If plurality of officers are invested with the powers of assessing the same dealer, it will result in great hardship and inconvenience to the dealers in travelling .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rala (supra), it was observed as under: 34. The existence of a multiplicity of officers of the same status exercising power over the same area can lead to chaos and confusion and conflicting orders. It may even lead to multiplicity of proceedings regarding the same subject matter causing hardship and inconvenience to dealers. Questions may also arise as to who should be the revisional or appellate authority in relation to a particular proceeding. Section 3(2) has therefore advisedly limited the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rcial Tax Officer and it was held at page 304 that any fixation of the territorial jurisdiction of an officer which is not limited to local limits but extends to the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh was clearly ultra vires the powers conferred on Government under Section 4. Reliance was placed on the observations of Beaumont, C. J. speaking for the Bench in Dayaldas Kushiram v. Commissioner of Income Tax which was a case under Section 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1992. The Bench also held that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t a reference can be made to the SOR as an external aid of construction. However, there cannot be a presumption of validity by reference to such SOR. (See Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Krishna Rangnath Mudholkar AIR 1963 SC 703 para 20) Effect of Section 28 (11) 66. The mere fact that Section 28(11) has been given retrospective effect does not solve the essential problem pointed out by the Supreme Court in the Sayed Ali case, which is the absence of the assigning of functions to proper office .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fficers only for the purposes of new Section 28 of the Act and not the earlier Section 28 of the Act. In particular, there is no validation of the SCNs issued prior to the amendment of Section 28 of the Act. As observed in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (supra), a legal consequence cannot be deemed nor, therefrom, can the events that should have preceded it. The past actions of the officers of the DRI and DGCEI who are not designated as proper officer in issuing S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

roper officer for the purposes of Section 28(11) of the Act. As further explained in Shri Ishar Alloys Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd. (supra), the article the always denotes a particular thing or person. 69. The Court also finds merit in the contention that if jurisdiction is exercised by one officer of the Customs or of the DRI or DGCEI, it should impliedly oust the jurisdiction of other officers over the same subject matter. The doctrine of comity of jurisdiction requires that for the prop .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o rely upon Section 28(11) of the Act as authorising the officers of the Customs, DRI, the DGCEI etc. to exercise powers in relation to non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refund for a period prior to 8th April 2011 if, in fact, there was no proper assigning of the functions of reassessment or assessment in favour of such officers who issued such SCNs since they were not proper officers for the purposes of Section 2(34) of the Act and further because Explanation 2 to Section 28 as presently enacte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

matter jurisdiction and in such event the provision would be vulnerable to being declared unconstitutional. 70.3 As regards the period subsequent to 8th April 2011, it is evident that if the administrative chaos as envisaged by the Supreme Court in Sayed Ali (supra) should not come about, there cannot be any duplicating and/or overlapping of jurisdiction of the officers. It would have to be ensured through proper co-ordination and administrative instructions issued by the CBEC that once a SCN is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dingly. 71. The Court next turns to the individual cases. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. 72. Writ Petition (C) No. 8196/2013 by Sony India Private Limited is against ten SCNs issued by the Additional Director General, DRI, Bangalore on 12th and 15th April 2013 in respect of alleged non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refund for period beginning with 1st April 2008 and bearing the following numbers: DRI F.No.S/IV/32/2011/NDLS, DRI F.No.S/IV/32/2011/Nhava Sheva, DRI F.No.S/IV/32/2011/ACC Mumbai, DRI F.No.S/IV .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Sheva, the Chennai sea port, the sea port at Kolkata and ICD at Dadri. Subsequently however a common adjudicating authority was appointed viz., the Commissionerate of Customs (Imports), New Delhi. 74. In light of the law explained hereinbefore, insofar as any of the above SCNs relate to the period prior to 8th April 2011 they are clearly without jurisdiction since the ADG, DRI could not have exercised such power for a period prior to 8th April 2011. Further in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

insofar as the SCNs cover the period subsequent to 8th April 2011, the adjudication proceedings shall go on in accordance with law. 76. Writ Petition (C) No. 8196/2013 and the pending application, if any, are accordingly disposed of. Mangali Impex Ltd. 77. The prayer in W.P. (C) No. 441 of 2013 by Mangali Impex Ltd. is for quashing of the SCN dated 31st October 2003 issued under Section 28/124 of the Act. 78. The petition has a long history beginning with samples having been drawn from 27 consig .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

riminal cases ensued. Later on 3rd February 2006, a closure report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation ( CBI ) was accepted by the concerned Court. 79. As far as the SCN issued to the Petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, SIIB was concerned, a petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 4167/2011 was filed in this Court challenging it. One of the main grounds urged therein was that the officer who issued the SCN was not properly authorised to do so. The said writ petition was di .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

titioner to challenge constitutional validity of the said sub-section in accordance with law. In view of the narration of Section 11 to Section 28 of the Act, the present writ petition to this extent is infructuous . It is pursuant to the above observation that the present writ petition was filed in which notice was issued on 28th January 2013. 81. The orders passed by the Court on 28th January 2013 and 4th February 2013 have already been adverted to. It was made clear by the Court that the adju .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Consequently, the observations of the Supreme Court in the Sayed Ali (supra) case will clearly apply to the case at hand. 82. In view of the aforesaid discussion in the main portion of the judgment, the Department cannot seek to rely on Section 28(11) of the Act to validate the SCN issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, SIIB to the Petitioner on 31st October 2003. As has already been held by the Court, Section 28 (11) of the Act cannot validate SCNs or proceedings pursuant thereto in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ication, if any, are disposed of in the above terms. M/s. Lakshman Overseas 84. The challenge in Writ Petition (C) No. 1185/2013 by M/s. Lakshman Overseas, M/s V-4 Manufacturing Co., M/s Everest Exports and Mr. Ashwani Aggarwal is to an impugned SCN dated 30th April 2010 issued to the Petitioner by the ADG, DRI, Delhi pursuant to a search conducted at the residential premises of Petitioner No.4 Mr. Ashwani Aggarwal on 8th September 2005. 85. In the petition there is also a challenge to a subsequ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

has been filed in the present writ petition where it is denied that at the time when the SCN was issued i.e. 30th April 2010, the ADG, DRI was not assigned the function of assessment under Section 17 and reassessment under Section 28 of the Act and was, therefore, not a proper officer for the purposes of Section 2(34) of the Act. 88. For the reasons already explained, the recourse to Section 28(11) of the Act as introduced with effect from 8th July 2011 cannot be had to validate the impugned SCN .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ventive) to the Petitioner pursuant to the putting on hold various consignments of woollen carpets sought to be exported by the Petitioner on 10th November 2010 at the ICD, Patparganj, New Delhi. The challenge is also to the Circular dated 29th September 2011 issued pursuant to the insertion of sub-section 11 to Section 28. 91. It is stated that the said SCN was initially adjudicated upon by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) who by an order dated 3rd October 2012 sustained the demand rais .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arch 2011 by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). 94. While directing notice to be issued in the present petition, the Court directed that the adjudication order will not be given effect to. 95. In light of what has been held in the earlier part of the present judgment, it is clear that in relation to the events that took place prior to 8th April 2011 no SCN could have been issued to the Petitioner by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) who admittedly is not a proper officer in terms o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Petition (C) No. 211/2014 by M/s. K.S. Traders is to a SCN dated 30th January 2004 issued by the ADG, DRI to the Petitioner alleging over invoicing and recovery of draw back under Rules 16 and 16-A of the Customs & Central Excise Duty Draw Back Rules, 1995 read with Sections 75(1), 76(1) (b) and 75-A(2) of the Act. 98. This was in relation to export of readymade garments made by the Petitioner to Russia in the period between June 1999 and June 2002. It is not in dispute that at the time impu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) is to a SCN dated 3rd April 2013 issued by the DRI, Delhi to BSNL as well as an order dated 23rd May 2013 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) under Section 4 of the Act assigning several cases including the case on hand to the Commissioner of Customs (Import & General) for the purposes of adjudication under Section 4 of the Act and consequent order dated 16th December 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import & General). 101. The brief fact .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n between BSNL and EIPL by suppressing the fact of importing the software required for the hardware thereby suppressing the true value of the hardware and evading the customs duty payable on the software relatable to hardware, a search was conducted in the premises of EIPL which led to issuance of the SCN dated 3rd April 2013. 103. Pursuant to the notice issued in the present petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the DRI. There is no denial of the fact that at the time when the SCN was issu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by Section 28(11) of the Act. 105. Consequently, the Court quashes the impugned SCN dated 3rd April 2013 and all proceedings consequent thereto including the impugned orders dated 23rd May 2013 and 16th December 2013. 106. Writ Petition (C) No. 225/2014 and the pending application, if any, are disposed of in the above terms. Sennheiser Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. 107. The SCN under challenge in Writ Petition (C) No. 863/2014 by Sennheiser Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. is dated 24th December 2011 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pending application, if any, are disposed of in the above terms. Comet Impex 110. The challenge in Writ Petition (C) No. 3803/2014 by M/s. Comet Impex is to an impugned SCN dated 31st October 2008 issued by the ADG, DRI, Delhi to the Petitioner in relation to reassessment of imported goods during the period prior to 8th April 2011. The challenge is also to the impugned Circular No. 44/2011-Cus dated 23rd September 2011 issued consequent upon the insertion of Section 28(11) of the Act. 111. Admi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nding application, if any, are disposed of in the above terms. Rajesh Gupta 114. The challenge in Writ Petition (C) No. 5262/2014 by Rajesh Gupta is to the SCN dated 14th March 2011 issued by the ADG, DRI in relation to alleged imports made through the ICD, Tughlakabad during the period prior thereto. 115. In light of the above discussion, with the ADG, DRI not being the proper officer under Section 2(34) of the Act at the time when the SCN was issued, Section 28(11) of the Act cannot be referre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a Private Ltd. 118. The challenge in Writ Petition (C) No. 5877/2014 by Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt. Ltd. is to one consolidated SCN dated 29th May 2014 was issued to the Petitioner for alleged short levy during the period 27th May 2009 to July 2013. 119. There are three separate Commissionerates at Nhava Sheva, Chennai and Kolkata to which the Petitioner has been made answerable in terms of the said SCN. 120. As far as the period involved covers the period 27th May 2009 to 8th April 2011, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. The prayer in Writ Petition (C) No. 4162/2015 filed by Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. is inter alia to the SCN dated 2nd April 2009 issued by the DRI and for declaring Section 28(11) of the Act to be constitutionally invalid. Reference is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sayed Ali (supra). 123. It is not in dispute that at the time the SCN was issued, the DG, DRI or any other officer of the DRI was not specifically assigned the task of reassessment and, therefore, was not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

11. A list of the bills of entry for the period prior to 8th April 2011 has been appended to as Annexure B to the SCN. The ADG, DRI who issued the SCN was admittedly not a proper officer for the purposes of Section 2(34) of the Act. 126. Consequently, the impugned SCN dated 2nd December 2013 and all proceedings consequent thereto to the extent they pertain to the period prior to 8th April 2011 are hereby quashed. The proceedings for the subsequent period may go on in accordance with law. 127. Wr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ril 2011. The proceedings for the subsequent period may go on in accordance with law. 129. Writ Petition (C) No. 5191/2015 and the pending application, if any, are disposed of in the above terms. Hansraj Bhatia & Co. through its Proprietor Shri Sanjeev Bhatia 130. The challenge in Writ Petition (C) No. 9379/2015 by Hansraj Bhatia & Co. is to the SCN dated 12th March 2014 issued by the ADG, DRI in relation to imports made for the period 24th June 2009 to 8th April 2011. While 8 bills of e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7th November 2013 issued by the ADG, DRI. This, however, pertains to bills of entry in relation to imports of Narrow Woven Fabrics from China during the period 8th November 2008 to 30th November 2010, i.e., a period prior to 8th April 2011. 134. For the reasons already discussed, the said SCN dated 7th November 2013 and all proceedings consequent thereto are hereby quashed. 135. Writ Petition (C) No. 11041/2015 and the pending application, if any, are disposed of in the above terms. Cortel Indi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

law and are hereby quashed. 138. Writ Petition (C) No. 11285/2015 and the pending application, if any, are disposed of in the above terms. Bhagwati Components Manufacturing Co. through its Director Mr. Surjit Singh 139. The challenge in this Writ Petition (C) No. 11806/2015 by Bhagwati Components Manufacturing Co. is to an SCN dated 10th September 2004 issued by the ADG, DRI in relation to the alleged mis-declaration of value of export of Alloy Steel Forgings (Machined) from ICD, Tughlakabad and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

above terms. Eastron Overseas Inc. 142. The challenge in this Writ Petition (C) No. 11853/2015 by Eastron Overseas Inc. is to a SCN bearing F. No. 23/17/2011-DZU(Eastron)/5951 (Show cause notice No. 50/2014) dated 20th November 2014 issued by the ADG, DRI under Section 124 of the Customs Act read with Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in relation to import of Color Picture Tubes in the year 2010. 143. For the reasons already mentioned, the impugned SCN and all proceedings consequent the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version