TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oning the jurisdiction of the DRI to issue show-cause notice? HELD THAT:- The issue raised in this appeal had already been dealt with by this Court in THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS SHRI SANKET PRAFUL TOLIA [ 2021 (6) TMI 432 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where the same substantial question of law has been raised, and it was held that The appeals are restored to the file of the Tribunal with a direction to keep the appeals pending and await the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. - Honourable Mrs. Justice V.Bhavani Subbaroyan And Honourable Mr. Justice K.K.Ramakrishnan For the Appellant : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar For the Respondent : Mr.B.Venugopal JUDGMENT V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J. This Civil Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- was imposed on the importer. Penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed on the importer under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the above order, the Department filed appeal before CESTAT, Chennai, for enhancing the penalty amount. (iii) The CESTAT without going into the merits of the case, has only considered the issue of jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (In short DRI ) and remanded the case to original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction and then decide the case on merits. Challenging the same, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal failed to consider the facts of the issue and simply remanded the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration in this writ appeal is as follows: When Section 28(11) of Customs Act, 1962, envisages that all persons appointed as officers of Customs under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 before the 6th day of July 2011, shall be deemed to have and always had the power of assessment under Section 17 and shall be deemed to have been and always had been the proper officers for the purpose of this Section, whether CESTAT is correct in disputing/questioning the jurisdiction of the DRI to issue show-cause notice? 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before us. 8. The issue raised in this appeal had already been dealt with by this Court in Commissioner of Customs vs. Sanket Praful Tolia (cited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 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 procedure that should have been adopted is to keep the appeals pending and await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appeals filed against the decision in Mangali Impex. Therefore, we are inclined to take similar view in these appeals as well. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the appeals are restored to file of the Tribunal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
