9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The petitioner is a proprietor of an Advertising Firm under the name and style of "M/s.Meena Advertisers". In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the summons dated 02.01.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to transfer the files pertaining to the petitioner's case to the Jurisdictional Authorities/ Officers, viz., the respondents 3 and 4 for further proceedings. 3. The petitioner's case is largely based upon a circular issued by the Central Board on 29.07.2017 in Circular No.1056/05/2017-C.X. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to para 3.2 of the Circular, submitted that as far as show cause notice issued to the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entralised Registration Certificate as Service Tax, it is imperative on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct investigation to safeguard the interest of Government Revenue. The learned counsel also referred to various other circulars in support of his contentions, which empowered the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct the investigation. 5. In the aforesaid factual background, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. It is settled position that summons cannot be quashed or injuncted and this court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. M.M.Exports reported in 2007 (212) E.L.T.165 (S.C.) held that the writ petition was not maintainable to quash the summons and dismissed the writ petition. Similar issue was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Howrah in State of West Bengal where they were seized by the Customs Authorities on the ground that they had been imported on the strength of fictitious licences. The Department held that the goods were liable for confiscation, which was challenged before the CEGAT which held that the Customs Authorities in West Bengal, had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and the appeal was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by directing the Customs Authorities at Paradip, State of Orissa to initiate proceedings against the respondent on the ground that the goods had been imported on fictitious licences and not for the customs authorities in West Bengal to do so. 11. In Devilog Systems India (supra), one of the questions referred for con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Writ Petition specifically directed that the summons should set out reasons for which the petitioner is being summoned. This has been explicitly stated with summons dated 06.11.2017. Therefore, it is not a singular transaction, which is being investigated, but past transaction as well. This has been held to be permissible in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Sea), vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2009 (240) ELT 166 (Mad), wherein it was held that past conduct of the importer would assume significance in the course of investigation and there is power to investigate into past cases. 13. In Dukhishyam Benupani, Asstt. Director, Enforcement Directorate (Fera) vs. Arun Kumar Bajoria reported in (1988) 1 SCC 52, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion No.17/2002-Cus.(NT), dated 07.03.2002, though confers all India jurisdiction for certain officers, the Senior Intelligence Officer is lower rank than the Assistant Director and therefore, cannot rely on notification No.17/2002. This contention is not tenable for the reason that in terms of Section 108, any Customs Officer is entitled to issue notice, which was considered by the Division Bench in the case of South India Exports, (supra), wherein it was held as follows:- 9. We will not deal with the question as to whether the officer, who sent the notice under Sec.108 of the Customs Act, could not have sent the same owing to his not being a Gazetted officer. A statement is made on behalf of the respondents that the concerned officer is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (o), which reads as under: "Sec.111. Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc.- The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation:- ... ... ... (o) any goods exempted, subject to any condition, from duty or any prohibition in respect of the import thereof under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, in respect of which the condition is not observed unless the non-observance of the condition was sanctioned by the proper officer;" It is therefore clear that a Customs Officer would have all the possible power and more particularly described under Sec.108 of the Act to summon any person obviously to enquire as to whether any goods have been smuggled or not. If, therefore, any g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
