Full Text
Translation output
/ $-55 & 56 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CUSAA 150/2018 & CM APPL.26786-26787/2018
PR.COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Appellant
Through: Mr.Harpreet Singh,Sr. Standing Counsel for appellant.
CUSAA 150/2018 & CM APPL.26786-26787/2018
PR.COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Appellant
Through: Mr.Harpreet Singh,Sr. Standing Counsel for appellant.
VERSUS
A.S.CHERUKUPALLI,DIRECTOR OF OMR AVIATION PVT.LTD Respondent
Through: Ms.Apeksha Mehta,Mr.Yogendra Aldak and Mr.Karan Sachdev, Advocates.
Through: Ms.Apeksha Mehta,Mr.Yogendra Aldak and Mr.Karan Sachdev, Advocates.
CUSAA 151/2018 & CM APPL.26792-26793/2018
PR.COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,PREVENTIVE COMMISSIONERATE Appellant
Through: Mr.Harpreet Singh,Sr. Standing Counselfor appellant.
PR.COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,PREVENTIVE COMMISSIONERATE Appellant
Through: Mr.Harpreet Singh,Sr. Standing Counselfor appellant.
VERSUS
.
OMR INDUSTRIES LTD. Respondent
Through: Ms.Apeksha Mehta,Mr.Yogendra Aldak and Mr.Karan Sachdev, Advocates.
OMR INDUSTRIES LTD. Respondent
Through: Ms.Apeksha Mehta,Mr.Yogendra Aldak and Mr.Karan Sachdev, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER o/o 10.07.2018 The question urged by the appellants in these appeals is as
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER o/o 10.07.2018 The question urged by the appellants in these appeals is as
CUSAA 150/2018& 151/2018 ^
2018:DHC:9174-DB under "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal (hereinafter 'CESTAT) was justified in remanding the matterfor adjudication to the concerned official tofirst decide the issue ofjurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reportedjudgment in the case ofMangli linpex Limited v^. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"
Issue notice.
Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalfofthe respondents in both the appeals.
It is agreed,at the outset, by learned counsel for the parties 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 of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on
02.04.2018].
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 meritsincluding the question of
2018:DHC:9174-DB under "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal (hereinafter 'CESTAT) was justified in remanding the matterfor adjudication to the concerned official tofirst decide the issue ofjurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reportedjudgment in the case ofMangli linpex Limited v^. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"
Issue notice.
Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalfofthe respondents in both the appeals.
It is agreed,at the outset, by learned counsel for the parties 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 of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on
02.04.2018].
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 meritsincluding the question of
CUSAA 150/2018&151/2018 Page2of3 jurisdiction ofthe officer ofthe Directorate ofRevenue
Intelligence who had issued show cause notices. 'The said issue would be examined by the Tribunal without being influenced by the decision ofthe Delhi High Court in the case ofMangliImplexLimited(supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits ofthe 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."
Following the above decision,the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the CESTAT which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeals without being influenced by the decision ofthis Court in MangliImpex(supra). The
Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedurethatthe Tribunal should adoptand follow.
The appeals are partly allowed in the aboveterms.
S.RAVINDRA BHAT,J P.S.TE JULY 10,2018 nn
Intelligence who had issued show cause notices. 'The said issue would be examined by the Tribunal without being influenced by the decision ofthe Delhi High Court in the case ofMangliImplexLimited(supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits ofthe 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."
Following the above decision,the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the CESTAT which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeals without being influenced by the decision ofthis Court in MangliImpex(supra). The
Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedurethatthe Tribunal should adoptand follow.
The appeals are partly allowed in the aboveterms.
S.RAVINDRA BHAT,J P.S.TE JULY 10,2018 nn
CCSAA 150/2018& 151/2018 Page 2of3
JUDGMENT