9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dt. 07.07.17 was passed ex parte. It is submitted that the Show Cause Notice dt. 28.02.2006 was issued by the DRI, Kolkata and is not sustainable in the eye of law as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Mangali Impex Ltd. v. Union of India [2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del.)]. It is further submitted that the Tribunal while passing the order has not considered the grounds of appeal submitted by the Appellant. Therefore, the order dt. 07.07.17 may be recalled and the appeal may be heard again on merit. 4. I find that the Tribunal decided the appeal on merit at the first instance vide the abovementioned order. For proper appreciation of the case, the relevant portion of the order is reproduced: "2. The appellant a Custom House ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferent buyers/ importers. Thus they were also well aware of formalities associated with import of such items sold / transferred on high seas basis and particularly the implication on duty for the change of the status of the importer associated therewith as happened in the present case. As already discussed, crux of this case is that M/s JVL and Ms ASF wanted the transfer of title/ ownership of the goods to be only on paper and the CHA had clear access to those papers which bore proof of the illegitimacy of such purported transfer but failed to bring this to the notice of the department. Thus, as an authorized CHA, the notice No. 12, had failed to discharge their responsibility properly legally in dealing with the subject goods which they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notice under the Customs Act. He relied upon the decision of Mangali Impex Ltd. (supra). In that case, it has been held that the DRI officer has no jurisdiction to issue the SCN as per provisions of the law in force. In the present case, I find that the main noticee had already accepted and acted upon the purported show cause notice and had settled the case before the Settlement Commission as narrated in detail in the order of the Tribunal. 7. In my considered view, the main noticee has already acted upon the notice and in such circumstances the plea of the appellant herein who is a co-noticee has no substance. Therefore, I do not find any reason to recall the Final order of the Tribunal in this case. Accordingly, the application filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
