Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CUSAA 100/2018
, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS . ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing Counsel
CUSAA 100/2018
, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS . ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing Counsel
VERSUS
SAP INDIA PVT LTD.
Through:
Respondent Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Karan Sachdev and Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Advocates
WITH.
'CUSAA 101/2018: ■ , COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(IMPORT& GENERA)
' Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing ,Counsel
Through:
Respondent Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Karan Sachdev and Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Advocates
WITH.
'CUSAA 101/2018: ■ , COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(IMPORT& GENERA)
' Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing ,Counsel
VERSUS
SAP INDIA PVTLTD 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 CHANDER SHEKHAR
13.04.2018 CM Nos.14363/2018.14405/2018 Allowed,subjectto ailjustexceptions.
The applications are disposed of.
2018:DHC:9170-DB.1 CUSAANos.
100/2018.101/2018 With the consent ofthe counsel for the parties, the following substantial question oflaw isframed:-
"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 decision ofthe Supreme court in Civil
Appealpreferred againstthe decision ofDelhi High court in Mangli Impex Limited v. Union ofIndia 2016(335)
LET605(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
13.04.2018 CM Nos.14363/2018.14405/2018 Allowed,subjectto ailjustexceptions.
The applications are disposed of.
2018:DHC:9170-DB.1 CUSAANos.
100/2018.101/2018 With the consent ofthe counsel for the parties, the following substantial question oflaw isframed:-
"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 decision ofthe Supreme court in Civil
Appealpreferred againstthe decision ofDelhi High court in Mangli Impex Limited v. Union ofIndia 2016(335)
LET605(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 ofCustomsInland Container Depot, Tughlakabad,New Delhi.
Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority tp await the judgement ofthe Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in MangaliImpex Limited v. Union ofIndia, 2016(335)
LET605(Del)is set aside.
2018:DHC:9170-DB The appeals preferred before the Tribunal are restored to their original position. The Tribunal would decide the appeals on merits, including the qUestibn 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.., '■ 1/ '—.
APRIL 13,2018 tp ^ / SANJIV KHANNA, J CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
2018:DHC:9170-DB
Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority tp await the judgement ofthe Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in MangaliImpex Limited v. Union ofIndia, 2016(335)
LET605(Del)is set aside.
2018:DHC:9170-DB The appeals preferred before the Tribunal are restored to their original position. The Tribunal would decide the appeals on merits, including the qUestibn 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.., '■ 1/ '—.
APRIL 13,2018 tp ^ / SANJIV KHANNA, J CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
2018:DHC:9170-DB
JUDGMENT