Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.

1. The question urged by the appellantin this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(hereinafter 'CESTAT') wasjustified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official tofirst decide the issue ofjurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union ofIndia, 2016(339)ELT605(Del.) is decided? "

2. As per offiee report, the appellant did not file process fee. However, Mr. Karan Sachdev, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3. It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a hateh of 2019:DHC:7873-DB appeals[CommissionerofCustoms(General)vs.SAPIndiaPvt.Ltd., CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4. The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await thejudgmentofthe Supreme Courtin the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union ofIndia 2016(335)ELT605 (Del)issetaside. The appeals preferred before the Tribunal are restored to their originalposition. The Tribunal would decide the appeals on merits including the question of jurisdiction ofthe officer ofthe Directorate ofRevenue Intelligence who hadissuedshow cause notices. Thesaid issue would be examined by the Tribunal without being influenced by the decision ofthe DelhiHigh Courtin the case ofMangliImplex Limited(supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the appeals or on the procedure that the Tribunal should adoptandfollow. Question of law is accordingly answered. The ^ appeals are disposed ofin the aforesaid terms. There O would be no order as to costs."

5. Followingthe above decision,the impugned orderis herebyset aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view ofthe decision of this CourtinMangliImpex(supra),arekeptintact.In other words,the Tribunal may hearthe parties on the merits ofthe case as well as with respectto the issue ofjurisdiction,ifnecessary,on accountolMangli Impex(supra)and record separatefindings. Thefindings with respect J o o to the lack ofjurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli Impex(supra)would be subject to final outcome ofthe proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6. The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.

S.RAVINDRA BHAT,J PRATEEK JALAN,J MARCH 27,2019 pkb