Full Text
Translation output
$-20to 24 ■ ■ , , "
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CUSAA 94/2018,CUSAA 95/2018,96/2018,97/2018&98/2018
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
(IMPORTAND GENERAL) .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing Counsel
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CUSAA 94/2018,CUSAA 95/2018,96/2018,97/2018&98/2018
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
(IMPORTAND GENERAL) .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing Counsel
VERSUS
SAPINDIAPVTLTD . Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Karan Sachdev and Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Advocates
Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Karan Sachdev and Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE CHANDERSHEKHAR
11.04.2018 CM No.13888/2018 in CUSAA No.94/2m8
CM No.13889/2018 in CUSAA No.95/2018 CM No.13890/2018 in CUSAA No.96/2018
CM No.13891/2018 in CUSAA No.97/2018 CM No.13892/2018in CUSAA No.98/2018
Allowed,subjectto alljustexceptions.
■Ji . The applications are disposed of.
CUSAA Nos.94/2018. 95/2018. 96/2018. 97/2018 & 98/2018
With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the following substantial question of law is framed:-
"Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT') was justified and correct in passing an order of remand to the original
2018:DHC:9169-DB adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after decision ofthe Supreme court in Civil
Appeal preferred againstthe decision ofDelhi High court in Mangli Impex Limited v. Union of India 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 CHANDERSHEKHAR
11.04.2018 CM No.13888/2018 in CUSAA No.94/2m8
CM No.13889/2018 in CUSAA No.95/2018 CM No.13890/2018 in CUSAA No.96/2018
CM No.13891/2018 in CUSAA No.97/2018 CM No.13892/2018in CUSAA No.98/2018
Allowed,subjectto alljustexceptions.
■Ji . The applications are disposed of.
CUSAA Nos.94/2018. 95/2018. 96/2018. 97/2018 & 98/2018
With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the following substantial question of law is framed:-
"Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT') was justified and correct in passing an order of remand to the original
2018:DHC:9169-DB adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after decision ofthe Supreme court in Civil
Appeal preferred againstthe decision ofDelhi High court in Mangli Impex Limited v. Union of India 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 ofCustoms 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)
ELT605(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 ofthe Delhi High Courtin 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.
APRIL 11,2018 tp SANJIV KHANNA,J CHANDER"
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)
ELT605(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 ofthe Delhi High Courtin 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.
APRIL 11,2018 tp SANJIV KHANNA,J CHANDER"
JUDGMENT