TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court in the case of Mangali Impex Limited versus Union of India, [2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that DRI was not competent to issue show cause notice and hence the order-in-original passed thereafter would be void and illegal - the decision and ratio in Mangali Impex has been stayed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Mangali Impex Limited, [2016 (8) TMI 1181 - SUPREME COURT]. The question whether or not officers of the DRI could have issued SCN and its effect on the final order is an issue which has to be examined and considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, instead of deciding the said issue on merits, has passed an order setting aside the order-in-original to await the decision of the Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ( DRI‟ for short) to the respondents and thereupon original adjudication orders were passed by the Office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. These original adjudication orders were challenged and set aside by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) in view of its earlier decision in Final order No.53941-53942/2017, Doaba Stud Agriculture Farm versus Commissioner of Customs (I G) decided on 12th June, 2017. The decision of the Tribunal in Doaba Stud Agriculture Farm (supra) reads as under:- 2. During the course of arguments, the appellant's counsel h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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. 8. Subsequently, sub-Section (11) was inserted under Section 28 of the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 dated 14/09/2011, assigning the functions of proper officers to various DRI officers with retro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 13. By following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BSNL (Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28 of the Customs Act. Thereafter, sub-Section (11) was inserted under Section 28 of the Customs Act vide the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 with effect from 16th September, 2011, assigning the function of proper officers to various DRI officers with retrospective effect. A division bench of this High Court in the case of Mangali Impex (supra) has held that the newly inserted sub-Section 11 to Section 28 of the Customs Act would not empower the officers of DRI or the DGCEI to issue show cause notice for the period prior to 8th April, 2011 i.e. period prior to the date on which the Finance Act, 2011 had received assent of the President. 5. However, we may note that the decision and ratio in Mangali Impex (supra) has been sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see as well as inconvenience to the department. 8. We have, in the aforesaid circumstances, passed several orders, including order dated 20th November, 2017 in CUSAA 57/2017, Vipul Overseas Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Customs Ors., with consent of the parties allowing the appeals and remanding the case to the Tribunal for fresh decision and option has been given to the Tribunal to decide the issue on merit including the question of jurisdiction of the officer of DRI to issue show cause notice without being influenced by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the Mangali Impex (supra) or to await the judgment of the Supreme Court. 9. At this stage, while the order was being dictated, Mr. Kunal Prakash, Advocate has entered appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
