TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Revenue ORDER Per Shri P.K.Choudhary. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellant, despite Notice. Heard the ld.AR for the Revenue. 2. During the course of hearing, ld.AR for the Revenue agreed that the notice has been issued by the DRI which resulted in the impugned order. According to him, the DRI is not a competent authority as per the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. Vs UOI dated 03.05.2016. Presently, the matter is sub judice before the Hon ble Supreme Court. 3. In this connection, we note that similar issues have been dealt with in various cases by the Tribunal recently. The decision of the Tribunal in one such case vide Final Order No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order to overcome the situation created by the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sayed Ali (supra), Notification No. 44/2011-Cus (NT), dated July 6, 2011 was issued by the CBEC, assigning the functions of the proper officer to various officers (including Additional Director General, DRI) mentioned in the notification, for the purposes of Section 28 of the Act. Thus, w.e.f. July 6, 2011, the Additional Director General, DRI was prospectively appointed as proper officer for the purpose of Section 28 of the Customs Act. Hence, from 06/07/2011 ADG-DRI has been empowered to issue demand notice under Section 28. 7. Subsequently, sub-Section (11) was inserted under Section 28 of the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t may be mentioned that recently, the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in 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 outcome of the appeals filed by the UOI in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Court in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. 12. By following the ratio laid down by the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
