TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Vs. UOI which is stayed by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported as [ 2016 (8) TMI 1181 - SC ORDER ]. 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 Mangli Impex Ltd. It is found that the show cause notices involved in these appeals are also in jeopardy in view of the fact of Mangali Impex judgment as also the fact that the same has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jurisdiction of the DRI Officers to issue notice under the Customs Act. The assessee-appellant had taken a stand that in terms of the Hon ble Apex Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Sayed Ali, 2011 (265) 17 (SC)], the DRI officers were not proper officers in terms of section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. It is also seen that after the declaration of law by the Hon ble Supreme Court (Supra), the provisions of section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 were amended with effect from 08.04.2011 vide Finance Act, 2011. 7. It is also noticed that in order to overcome the situation created by the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sayed Ali (supra), Notification No. 44/2011-Cus (NT), dated July 6, 2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) / 147 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest in terms of Section 75A (2) of the Customs Act, 1962. We find that identical issue has also been considered in Mangali Impex judgment in para-97 thereof as follows : 97. The challenge in Writ Petition (C) No. 211/2014 by M/s. K.S. Traders is to a SCN dated 30th January 2004 issued by the ADG, DRI to the Petitioner alleging over invoicing and recovery of draw back under Rules 16 and 16-A of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 read with Sections 75(1), 76(1) (b) and 75-A(2) of the Act. 11. However, it is further noticed that the said issue was also the subject matter of Hon ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Gupta vs. Union of India [201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
