Full Text
CUSAA 101/2019
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Appellant
Through: Mr. Ashok K.Manchanda,Senior Standing Counsel for ITD
Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra,Senior Advocate with Ms.Kavita Jha,Ms.Devika Jain, Mr. Anant Mann,Advocate
Ms.Ria Chanda,Advocate
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
27.03.2019
ORDER
2. Issue notice. Ms.Kavita Jha,Advocate appears on behalfofthe 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 of appeals[Commissioner ofCustoms(General)vs. SAPIndia Pvt. Ltd., 2019:DHC:7837-DB 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 thejudgment ofthe Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union ofIndia 2016(335) ELT 605 (Del)is set aside. The appeals preferred before the Tribunal are restored to their original position. The Tribunal would decide the appeals on merits including the question of jurisdiction ofthe officer ofthe Directorate ofRevenue Intelligence who had issuedshow cause notices. The said issue would be examined by the Tribunal without being influenced by the decision ofthe Delhi High Court in the case ofMangli Implex 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 of in the aforesaid terms. There would be no order as to costs."
5. Following the above decision,the impugned order is hereby set 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 fight to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view ofthe decision of this Court in MangliImpex(supra),are kept intact.In other words,the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits ofthe case as well as with respect to the issue ofjurisdiction, ifnecessary,on account ofMangli Impex(supra)and record separate findings. The findings with respect 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