TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Appeals are allowed by setting aside the orders impugned herein and the matters are remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to keep the same pending and await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appeals filed against the decision in Mangali Impex [ 2016 (8) TMI 1181 - SC ORDER ]. However, it is made clear that the appellants shall not initiate any coercive action against the respondent(s)/assessee(s) and await the final decision in the appeals, which have been restored to the file of the Tribunal. - C.M.A.Nos.1520 and 2790 of 2018 And C.M.A.Nos.169, 171, 1367, 1369, 1503, 1541, 2071 and 2072 of 2019 And C.M.P.Nos.12082 of 2018 & 4315, 4316 and 3826 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2022 - Honourable Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan And Honourable Mr. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq For the Appellant : Mr.A.P.Srinivas in all CMAs For the Respondent : Mr.Joseph Prabakar in CMA.No.1520 of 2018, Mr.Satish Sundar in CMA.No.2790 of 2018, Mr.K.Govi Ganesan in CMA.Nos.169 and 171 of 2019, Mr. Allwin Godwin in CMA.Nos.1367 and 1541 of 2019, Mr.S.Jaikumar in CMA.Nos.1503, 2071 and 2072 of 2019 COMMON JUDGMENT R. MAHADEVAN, J. Since the issues involved in all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified the order passed by Commissioner of Customs and made a request to decide the matter on merit. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. From the record, it appears that the preliminary issue which emerges in the present appeals is regarding the jurisdiction of the DRI officers to issue notice under the Customs Act. The assessee-Respondent 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. It is also seen that after the declaration of law by the Honourable 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. 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 (surpa), notification No.4/2011-Cus (NT), dated July 6, 2011 was issued by the CBEC, assigning the functions of the proper officer to various officers (including Additional Director General, DRI) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, 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 Mangali Impex Limited. By following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BSNL (supra) as well as by considering totality of facts and circumstances, we 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Mangali Impex and then 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. In the result, both the appeals are allowed by way of remand. Aggrieved over the same, the Revenue is before this court with these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 6.Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this court. 7.Earlier, the issues involved herein have been considered and decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed by the Appellate Authority and remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. 6. In the case of the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. The Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and others [CMA.(MD)Nos.375 to 379 of 2018] [2019 (31) G.S.T.L.33 (Mad.)], a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) was a party, had an occasion to test the correctness of an identical order passed by the Tribunal and by a common Judgment, dated 4-10-2019, set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored the appeals to the file of the Tribunal to be kept pending and await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was also made clear that the appellant - Department shall not initiate any coercive action against the respondents/assessees. The operative portion of the said Judgment reads as follows: 3. In these appeals, the Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law, (i) as to whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the appeals on the ground that the jurisdiction issue has to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appeal filed against the decision of the High Court of Delhi, in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
