Full Text
Translation output
$-25,27,28&29 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CUSAA112/2018
THECOMMISSIONEROFCUSTOMS ADnellnnt
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narulaj SSC with Mr. Abhishek Ghai,Advocate
CUSAA112/2018
THECOMMISSIONEROFCUSTOMS ADnellnnt
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narulaj SSC with Mr. Abhishek Ghai,Advocate
VERSUS
SAP INDIA PVTLTD
, Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Karan Sachdev and Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Advocates
, Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Karan Sachdev and Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Advocates
WITH
CUSAA 114/2018
THECOMMISSIONER OFCUSTOMS Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, SSC with Mr.
THECOMMISSIONER OFCUSTOMS Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, SSC with Mr.
VERSUS
SAPINDIAPVTLTD Respondent Advocates
WITH
CUSAA 115/2018
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(IMPORT&GENERA)
Appellant 2018:DHC:9172-DB f
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(IMPORT&GENERA)
Appellant 2018:DHC:9172-DB f
VERSUS
SAPINDIAPVTLTD Respondent Advocates
WITH
CUSAA116/2018
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Appellant
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Appellant
VERSUS
SAP INDIA PVTLTD Respondent Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
23.04.2018 CM Nos.15655/2018,15659/2018,15660/2018 & 15661/2018
Allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.
CUSAA Nos.112/2018,114/2018.115/2018 & 116/2018
With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the following 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 deeision ofthe Supreme eourt in Civil
Appeal preferred againstthe decision ofDelhi High eourt in Mangli 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
23.04.2018 CM Nos.15655/2018,15659/2018,15660/2018 & 15661/2018
Allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.
CUSAA Nos.112/2018,114/2018.115/2018 & 116/2018
With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the following 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 deeision ofthe Supreme eourt in Civil
Appeal preferred againstthe decision ofDelhi High eourt in Mangli 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, Shri Surender Garg
Customs and Others and CUSAA 58/2017, Shri Surender Garg
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs and Others and order dated 13th December, 2017 passed in CUSAA 67/2017, Forech India Private
Limited
Limited
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad,New Delhi.
Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudieating authority to await the judgement of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangali Impex Limited v. 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 ofjurisdiction ofthe officer ofthe Directorate ofRevenue Intelligence who had issued show eause notices. The said issue would be examined by the Tribunal, without being influenced by the decision ofthe 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. ^
SANJIV KHANNA,J APRIL 23,2018 tp CHANDER SHEKHAR,J
Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudieating authority to await the judgement of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangali Impex Limited v. 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 ofjurisdiction ofthe officer ofthe Directorate ofRevenue Intelligence who had issued show eause notices. The said issue would be examined by the Tribunal, without being influenced by the decision ofthe 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. ^
SANJIV KHANNA,J APRIL 23,2018 tp CHANDER SHEKHAR,J
JUDGMENT