Full Text
Translation output
$-22 W 23.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CUSAA109/2018
. COMMISSIONER pF CUSTOMS , .....Appellant ' , . Through Mr.SanjeevNarula,CGSC
, '.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CUSAA109/2018
. COMMISSIONER pF CUSTOMS , .....Appellant ' , . Through Mr.SanjeevNarula,CGSC
, '.
VERSUS
SAP INDIA PVTLTD. ..... Respondent g- . Through Mr: V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Adv. with
Mr. L. Badri Narayanan, Mr. Yogenra ; : - : - Aldak and Mr.Karan Sachdev,Adv.
' ■ .AND
Mr. L. Badri Narayanan, Mr. Yogenra ; : - : - Aldak and Mr.Karan Sachdev,Adv.
' ■ .AND
CUSAA 110/2018
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS • , ..... Appellant
Through Mr.SanjeevNarula,CGSC versus'
■ SAP,INDIA PVTLTD., ^ .....Respondent
' Through Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Adv. with ;' Mr.L.Badri Narayanan,Mr. Yogenra ' Aldakand Mr.Karan Saehdev,Adv.
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS • , ..... Appellant
Through Mr.SanjeevNarula,CGSC versus'
■ SAP,INDIA PVTLTD., ^ .....Respondent
' Through Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Adv. with ;' Mr.L.Badri Narayanan,Mr. Yogenra ' Aldakand Mr.Karan Saehdev,Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
17.04.2018 ' CM No.14772/2018 in CUSAA 109/2018
CM No.14776/2018 in CUSAA 110/2018 Exemption allowed subjectto alljust exceptions.
2018:DHC:9171-DB
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
17.04.2018 ' CM No.14772/2018 in CUSAA 109/2018
CM No.14776/2018 in CUSAA 110/2018 Exemption allowed subjectto alljust exceptions.
2018:DHC:9171-DB
CUSAA 109/2018 and CUSAA 110/2018
With the consentofthe counselforthe parties,thefollowing substantial question oflaw is framed:-
"Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal('CBSTAT')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
Appealpreferred againstthe decision ofDelhi High court 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
With the consentofthe counselforthe parties,thefollowing substantial question oflaw is framed:-
"Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal('CBSTAT')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
Appealpreferred againstthe decision ofDelhi High court 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 ofCustoms and Others and order dated 13th December, 2017.passed in CUSAA 67/2017, Forech India Private
Limited
Limited
VERSUS
Commissioner ofCustomsInland 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 MangaliImpex 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 showcause 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 thatthe Tribunal should adopt and follow. . '
Question of law is accordingly answered. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There would be ho order as to costs. - ■ • - .
// e SANJIV KHANNA,J ^ O' GRANDER SHEKHAR,J APRIL 17,2018 b
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 MangaliImpex 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 showcause 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 thatthe Tribunal should adopt and follow. . '
Question of law is accordingly answered. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There would be ho order as to costs. - ■ • - .
// e SANJIV KHANNA,J ^ O' GRANDER SHEKHAR,J APRIL 17,2018 b
JUDGMENT