TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on merits of the case but by providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Till the final decision, the status quo will be maintained. Matter on remand. - C/40163 - 40164/2013 - Final Order No. 40527-40528/2018 - Dated:- 28-2-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Ms. Swarupa, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Ld. Counsel, Ms. Swarupa appeared on behalf of the appellants. The Ld. AR, Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 2. Heard both sides. 3. On perusal of records, it is learnt that the proceedings in the case were initiated by a show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted 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. 7. Subsequently, sub-section 11 was inserted under section 28 of the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 dated 16.9.2011, assigning the functions of proper officers to various DRI officers with retrospective effect. 8. Later on, i.e. for the period subsequent to the amendment, the matter i.e. the DRI officers having the proper jurisdiction to issue the SCN or not had came up before the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex vs. Union of India [2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del.)], and the High Court inter alia, held that even the new inserted section 28 (11) d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 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. 12. The LD. AR has put forward a contention that on mertis the issue stands decided in favour of the department in the case of Bharati Airtel Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore 2012 (286) ELT 270 (Tri.-Bang.). That in that case, the Tribunal had also considered the issue whether SCN issued by DRI is sustainable or not and that the Tribunal has held this issue of jurisdiction of DRI to issue SCN also in favour of Revenue. We have considered this submission. We take note of the fact that the decision in the case of Mangli Impex (suupra) was rendered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
