PR COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. D.BHANDARI

1. The question urged by the appellantin thisappeal is asunder.- "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 office report, the appellant did not file process fee. However, Ms. Ria Chanda, 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 batch oi appeals[Commissioner ofCustoms(General)V[5].SAPIndiaPvt.Ltd., 2019:DHC:7871-DB X, CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018J.

4. TheCourthad then directed asfollows:- 'Hes. mthonty10awaitthejwlgmenloftheSupreme Counfn the appeal preferred against the decision in Malll mpex Limited vj. Union ofIndia 2016(335)ELT605 (Del)IS set aside. OUD restorld'to^T"''' «« dec7e th(an T'^ Tribunal would decide the appeals on merits including the question of Zl Directorate ofKevenl issuZ^ZZh" ^ "ff^enotices. Thesaid infiueZZby]Z7ZZLtZ p ssea any opinion on merits; nf thr, Z7tan7fo7oZ. """ ^tould Question of law is accordingly answered Tha TZ\r'T'" "foZaidZZs lL^e would be no orderasto costs."

5. Followingtheabovedecision,theimpugnedorderisherebyset asi e 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 ■ssued,n this case were legally untenable, in view ofthe decision of s Court tnMangliImpes(supra), arekept intact. In otherwords the nbunal may hear theparties on the merits ofthe caseas well as with respect to the issue ofjurisdiction. Ifnecessary, on account ofMangli mpex (supra) and record separate findinp-; TU r to the 1. L. r ■ • ^ with respect to the lack ofjurisdiction, if any based on the ' y, oased on the reasoning in Mangli i V 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 JaCaN,J MARCH 27,2019 pkb