TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll as Delhi High Court and the view taken by the another Division Bench, the decision of the Tribunal is proper inasmuch as merely because the judgment is stayed, the other Division Bench cannot take a contrary view - no substantial questions of law arises - Appeal dismissed. - D.B. Custom Appeal No. 43/2018, 3/2018, 4/2018, 5/2018, 6/2018, 7/2018, 8/2018, 11/2018, 12/2018, 13/2018, 15/2018, 16/2018, 18/2018, 19/2018, 20/2018, 21/2018, 22/2018, 23/2018, 24/2018, 25/2018, 26/2018, 27/2018, 28/2018, 29/2018, 30/2018, 31/2018 - - - Dated:- 1-8-2018 - D.B. Custom Appeal No. : 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 36/2018, 37/2018, 38/2018, 39/2018, 40/2018, 41/2018, 42/2018, 44/2018 And 48/2018 Commissioner of Customs Preventive, Cce And St-Jaipur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereby the Tribunal has remitted back the matters. Counsel for the appellant has framed following questions of law:- In D.B. Custom Appeal 43/2018, In D.B. Custom Appeal 44/2018, Both appeals questions are same: 1. Whether Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), who is jurisdictional Commissioner also for whole state of Rajasthan, is proper officer in view of Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962 for assessment under Section 17 and Re-assessment/recovery of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962? 2. Whether the case of M/s Mangali Impex vs. CCE is applicable in the present case? In D.B. Custom Appeal 22/2018, In D.B. Custom Appeal 23/2018, In D.B. Custom Appeal 24/2018, In D.B. Custom Appeal 25/2018, In D.B. Custom A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct in law in passing an order of remand to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after passing the stay order wherein operation of the Order passed by Hon ble Delhi High Court was stayed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal preferred against the decision of Delhi High Court in Mangli Impex Limited v. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del.)? 2. That other questions will urged during the time of argument. Counsel for the appellant contended that the decision in the case of Mangli Impex Ltd. vs. Union of India; (2016) 335 E.L.T. 605 (Del.) ought not to have been relied upon by the Tribunal inasmuch the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 20453/2016 vide order dated 1st August, 2016 has staye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1962 were amended with effect from 08/04/2011 vide Finance Act, 2011. 5. It is also noticed that in order to overcome the situation created by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sayed Ali (supra), Notification No. 44/2011-Cus (NT) : MANU/CUSN/0099/2011, dt. 06/07/2011 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. 06/07/2011, 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 un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show that there are two views holding the field and the matter now stand before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In an earlier case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandna Impex Vs. CC, Delhi [MANU/SC/0740/2011 : 2012 (26) STR 257 (SC)] had remanded the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to examine the issue of jurisdiction afresh in the light of decision in Sayed Ali (supra). As already observed the entire issue is once again before the Hon'ble Apex Court, in view of the contrary decision of various High Courts. In these circumstances, I deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after the availability of Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iously pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is bound to be final and binding on all the Authorities and the Tribunal below. Therefore, since the present nature of the case as to which authority will have jurisdiction to decide the matter of the appellant and other persons mentioned in the show cause notice, will depend upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this matter need not be kept pending here on our Board and in our considered view no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The proceedings before the concerned Authority who will be the 'proper authority' held so, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
