Full Text
CUSAA11/2018
' COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Harpreet Singh,SSC
Through: Mr.Rishab Nagar,Advoeate
COMMISSIONER OFCUSTOMS . Appellant
Through: Mr.Rishab Nagar,Advocate -
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Appellant
Through: Mr.Rishab Nagar,Advocate
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
10.04.2018 2018:DHC:9168-DB CMNo.4387/2018 in CUSAA 11/2018
CM No:4388/2018 in CUSAA 12/2018 CMNo.4651/2018 in CUSAA 13/2018
Applications are notopposed.
For the reasons stated in the above applications delay of47 days,43 days and 12 days in filing CUSAA Nos.11/2018, 12/2018 and 13/2018 is
, condoned.
The applicationsfor condonation ofdelay are accordingly allowed.
-CUSAA 11/2018. CUSAA 12/2018 & CUSAA 13/2018
ORDER
1. With the eonsent of the counsel for the parties, the following substantial question oflaw is framed:- "Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('CESTAT') was justified and correct in law in passing an order of remand to the original adjudicating authority tofirst decide the issue ofjurisdiction, after decision of the Supreme court in Civil Appeal preferred against the decision ofDelhiHigh courtin MangliImpexLimited v. Union ofIndia 2016(335)ELT605(Del.)?"
2. Counsel for the respondent states that the impugned orders may be quashed and the matters 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 versus Commissioner of Customs and Others and order dated 13th December, 2017 passed in CUSAA 67/2017, Forech India Private Limited versus Commissioner of CustomsInland ContainerDepot, Tughlakabad,New Delhi.
3. Accordingly, the impugned orders challenged in these appeals, remanding the matters to the adjudicating authority to await the Judgement ofthe Supreme Courtin the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli ImpexLimited v. Union ofIndia2016(335)ELT605(Del)is set aside.
4. 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 of the officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence who had issued show cause notiees. The said issue would be examined by the Tribunal without being influeneed by the decision ofthe Delhi High Court in the ease ofMangliImpex Limited(supra). We clarify that we haye not expressed any opinion on merits ofthe appeals or on the procedure thatthe Tribunalshould adopt and follow.
4. Question oflaw is accordingly answered.The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.There would be no order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA,J. P GRANDER^EKHAR,J. APRIL 10,2018 mamta