Full Text
Translation output
$-5 to 9,40 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CUSAA45/2018,46/2018,47/2018,48/2018,50/2018,51/2018
THECOMMISSIONEROFCUSTOMS Appellant
Through Mr.Snjeev Narula,Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Abhishek Ghai,Advocatefor Customs,
CUSAA45/2018,46/2018,47/2018,48/2018,50/2018,51/2018
THECOMMISSIONEROFCUSTOMS Appellant
Through Mr.Snjeev Narula,Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Abhishek Ghai,Advocatefor Customs,
VERSUS
SAPINDIAPVTLTD .....Respondent
Through Mr.Yogendra Aldak,Mr.Karan Sachdev and Ms.Apeksha Mehta,Advocats
; CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICESANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE CHANDERSHEKHAR
02.04.2018 CM No.10825/2018in CUSAA 45/2018 CM No.10826/2018in CUSAA 46/2018
CM No.10829/2018in CTJSAA 47/2018 CM No.10991/2018in CUSAA 48/2018
CM No.11098/2018 in CUSAA 50/2018 CM No.11646/2018 in CUSAA 51/2018
Exemptionallowedsubjectto alljustexceptions.
Through Mr.Yogendra Aldak,Mr.Karan Sachdev and Ms.Apeksha Mehta,Advocats
; CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICESANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE CHANDERSHEKHAR
02.04.2018 CM No.10825/2018in CUSAA 45/2018 CM No.10826/2018in CUSAA 46/2018
CM No.10829/2018in CTJSAA 47/2018 CM No.10991/2018in CUSAA 48/2018
CM No.11098/2018 in CUSAA 50/2018 CM No.11646/2018 in CUSAA 51/2018
Exemptionallowedsubjectto alljustexceptions.
CUSAA 45/2018.46/2018.47/2018.48/2018.50/2018.51/201S
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 arid correct m law m passing an order of remand to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of
2018:DHC:9164-DB jurisdiction, after decision of the Supreme court in Civil
Appeal preferred against the decision ofDelhi High court in Mangli impex Limited v. Union of India 2016 (3351
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 20'^ November, 2017 passed in CUSAA 57/2017, Vipul
Overseas Private Limited
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 arid correct m law m passing an order of remand to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of
2018:DHC:9164-DB jurisdiction, after decision of the Supreme court in Civil
Appeal preferred against the decision ofDelhi High court in Mangli impex Limited v. Union of India 2016 (3351
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 20'^ 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 md order dated 13"^ December, 2017 passed in
Customs and Others md order dated 13"^ December, 2017 passed in
CUSAA 67/2017,Forech India Private Limited
VERSUS
Commissioner of
CustomsInland ContainerDepot,Tughlakabad,New Delhi.
Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remandingthe matterto the adjudicating authorityto awaitthejudgementof the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli
ImpexLimited V. Union ofIndia2016(335)ELT605(Del)issetaside.
The appealspreferred beforethe Tribunalarerestoredtotheiroriginal 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 notices. The said issue would be examined by the Tribunal without beinginfluenced by the decision ofthe
Delhi High Courtinthe case ofMangliImpexLimited(supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits ofthe appeals or on the procedure thatthe Tribunal should adoptandfollow.
Question oflaw is accordingly answered.The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.There would be no order as to costs.
APRIL 02,2018 MR
-■li^
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
CustomsInland ContainerDepot,Tughlakabad,New Delhi.
Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remandingthe matterto the adjudicating authorityto awaitthejudgementof the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli
ImpexLimited V. Union ofIndia2016(335)ELT605(Del)issetaside.
The appealspreferred beforethe Tribunalarerestoredtotheiroriginal 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 notices. The said issue would be examined by the Tribunal without beinginfluenced by the decision ofthe
Delhi High Courtinthe case ofMangliImpexLimited(supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits ofthe appeals or on the procedure thatthe Tribunal should adoptandfollow.
Question oflaw is accordingly answered.The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.There would be no order as to costs.
APRIL 02,2018 MR
-■li^
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
JUDGMENT