TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IGH COURT] where it was held that I n the case of the Commissioner of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TUTICORIN VERSUS CESTAT, CHENNAI, M/S. SRI RAJENDRA MANSUKHLAL SHAH, SHRI. MOHAMMED AZAM, M/S. VISAL TRIBOTECH (P) LTD., SHRI. R. PARRIVALLAL AND M/S. SHRI. TARUN SALOT [ 2019 (12) TMI 249 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] 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 04.10.2019, 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 Honourable Supreme Court. Following the latest decision in Sanket Praful Tolia ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction of the officer to issue show cause notice is under dispute. 2. The respondent(s) herein approached the CESTAT, by filing appeals as against the order dated 12.09.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Export), Chennai, questioning the jurisdiction of the officials of the DRI, who have not been designated as proper officers under the Customs Act, 1962 during the relevant point of time, to issue show cause notices. According to the respondent(s), the show cause notices have been issued by the officials of DRI, who lack jurisdiction to do so. Therefore, they raised preliminary objection regarding the legality of the proceedings issued by such authorities. 3. The CESTAT, by the order dated 24.10.2017, which is impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 28. 8. Subsequently, sub-section 11 was inserted under section 28 of the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 dated 16.09.2011, assigning the functions of proper officers to various DRI officers with retrospective effect. 9. 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) does not empower either the officers of DRI or the DGCEI to issue the SCN or adjudicate for the period prior to 08.04.2011. Thus, it is seen that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appeals filed by the UOI in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Court in the case of Mangali Impex Limited. 13. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this appeal. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal, with no order as to costs. 6. However, in the subsequent decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. Sanket Praful Tolia , decided on 04.06.2021 in C.M.A.(MD) Nos.433 to 437 and 439 to 455 of 2021, wherein, the orders impugned are identical to that of the present cases, it was held by this Court as follows: 5. The Revenue is before us contending that the Tribunal ought not to have remanded the matter to the adjudicating Authority and it should have taken a decision on the merits of the matter. The Revenue would further contend that Section 28(11) of the Act envisages that all persons appointed as officers of Customs under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risdiction 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 case of Mangali Impex vs. Union of India reported in 2016(335)E.L.T.605(Del.); (ii) The next question is as to whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the appeals and simultaneously directing status quo to be maintained till a final decision is arrived at. 4. Identical orders were tested for its correctness in the Principal Bench to which one of us (T.S.S., J,) is a party. After elaborate arguments, the Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the appeal and consequently directing status quo till the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
