Full Text
Translation output
c- ! \ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CUSAA118/2018
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(IMPORT&GENERA Appellant
Through; Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing Counsel
CUSAA118/2018
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(IMPORT&GENERA Appellant
Through; Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing Counsel
VERSUS
SAP INDIA PVT LTD
Through:
Through:
WITH
Respondent Ms. Apeeksha Mehta & Mr. YogendraAldak,Advocates
CUSAA 119/2018
COMMISSIONER OFCUSTOMS(IMPORT&GENERA)
Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing Counsel
COMMISSIONER OFCUSTOMS(IMPORT&GENERA)
Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing Counsel
VERSUS
SAPINDIAPVTLTD Respondent
Through: Ms. Apeeksha Mehta & Mr. Yogendra Aldak,Advocates
Through: Ms. Apeeksha Mehta & Mr. Yogendra Aldak,Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
25.04.2018 CM Nos.16293/2018& 16294/2018 Allowed,subjectto alljustexceptions.
2018:DHC:9173-DB C- The applications are disposed of.
CUSAA Nos.118/2018& 119/2018 Withthe consentofthe counselforthe parties,thefollowing substantial question oflaw is framed:-
"Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal('CESTAT')wasjustified and correct in law in passing an order of remand to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after decision ofthe Supreme court in Civil
Appeal preferred againstthe decision ofDelhi High court in Mangali Impex Limited v. Union ofIndia 2016(335)
ELT605(Del.)?" Counsel for the respondent states that the impugned order may be quashed and the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision without expressing any opinion on merits. Counsel for the parties rely on orders dated 20th November,2017 passed in CUSAA
57/2017, Vipul Overseas Private Limited
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
25.04.2018 CM Nos.16293/2018& 16294/2018 Allowed,subjectto alljustexceptions.
2018:DHC:9173-DB C- The applications are disposed of.
CUSAA Nos.118/2018& 119/2018 Withthe consentofthe counselforthe parties,thefollowing substantial question oflaw is framed:-
"Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal('CESTAT')wasjustified and correct in law in passing an order of remand to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after decision ofthe Supreme court in Civil
Appeal preferred againstthe decision ofDelhi High court in Mangali Impex Limited v. Union ofIndia 2016(335)
ELT605(Del.)?" Counsel for the respondent states that the impugned order may be quashed and the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision without expressing any opinion on merits. Counsel for the parties rely on orders dated 20th November,2017 passed in CUSAA
57/2017, Vipul Overseas Private Limited
VERSUS
Commissioner of
Customs and Others and CUSAA 58/2017, ShrL Surender Garg
Customs and Others and CUSAA 58/2017, ShrL Surender Garg
VERSUS
Commissioner ofCustoms and Others and order dated 13th December, 2017 passed in CUSAA 67/2017, Forech India Private
Limited
Limited
VERSUS
Commissioner ofCustoms Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad,New Delhi.
Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgement ofthe Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangali Impex Limited v. Union ofIndia 2016 (335)
•t
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 ofjurisdiction 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 of the Delhi High Court in the case ofMangaliImpex
Limited(supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits ofthe appeals or on the procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.
Question of law is accordingly answered. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There would be no order as to costs.
^- il , SANJIV KHANNA,J CHAN^^SHEKHAR,J APRIL 25,2018/tp
Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgement ofthe Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangali Impex Limited v. Union ofIndia 2016 (335)
•t
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 ofjurisdiction 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 of the Delhi High Court in the case ofMangaliImpex
Limited(supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits ofthe appeals or on the procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.
Question of law is accordingly answered. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There would be no order as to costs.
^- il , SANJIV KHANNA,J CHAN^^SHEKHAR,J APRIL 25,2018/tp
JUDGMENT