TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessment under Section 17 and shall be deemed to have been and always had been the proper officers for the purposes of this section - So long as Section 28(11) of the Customs Act, 1962 is holding the field, I am bound to give effect to the same. The writ petition filed by the petitioner questioning the impugned order cannot be allowed - petition dismissed. - WP(MD)No.20021 of 2018 And WMP(MD)No.17801 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2018 - Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Parthiban For the Respondent : Mr.Vijayakarthikeyan ORDER The petitioner was visited with an order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the respondent herein. The said order is questioned in this writ petition on the ground that the sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t being its investigative and detective wing. Now, the question arises as to whether a retrospective jurisdiction could have been conferred by the legislative amendment. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the decision reported in 2016 (335) E.L.T 605(Del.) (Mangali Impex Ltd vs. Union of India) held as follows : Conclusion on the effect and validity of Section 28 (11) : 70.1 The net result of the above discussion is that the Department cannot seek to rely upon Section 28(11) of the Act as authorising the officers of the Customs, DRI, the DGCEI etc. to exercise powers in relation to non- levy, short-levy or erroneous refund for a period prior to 8th April 2011 if, in fact, there was no proper assigning of the functions of reassess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner also pointed out that in a number of similar cases, the Tribunals have been consistently remanding the matters and calling upon the adjudicating authority to keep the matters on hold and in abeyance by entering the same in the call book and act after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court is pronounced in Mangali Impex case. The Delhi High Court and the High Court of Kerala have also been acting on the same lines. 7.I am not in a position to agree with the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. So long as Section 28(11) of the Customs Act, 1962 is holding the filed, I am bound to give effect to the same. Before me, the writ petitioner has not questioned the vires or validity of the aforesa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
