Full Text
Translation output
$-25'and 27 HIGH COURT OF DELHI . CUSAA 60/2018,62/2018 , THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Appellant
Through Mr.Sanjeev Narula,Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr.Abhishek Ghai,Advocate for
Customs.
Through Mr.Sanjeev Narula,Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr.Abhishek Ghai,Advocate for
Customs.
VERSUS
SAPINDIA PVT LTD Respondent
Through Mr.Yogendra Aldak,Addvocate.
Through Mr.Yogendra Aldak,Addvocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIVICHANNA
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
N 03.04.2018 CM No.12378/2018 in CUSAA 60/2018
CM No.12380/2018 in CUSAA 62/2018 Exemption allowed subjectto alljust exceptions.
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
N 03.04.2018 CM No.12378/2018 in CUSAA 60/2018
CM No.12380/2018 in CUSAA 62/2018 Exemption allowed subjectto alljust exceptions.
CUSAA 60/2018,62/2018
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') was justified and correct in law in passing an order of remand to the original adjudicating - authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after decision of the Supreme court in Civil
Appeal preferred against the decision ofDelhi High court in Mangli Impex Lirnited 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
2018:DHC:9166-DB 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') was justified and correct in law in passing an order of remand to the original adjudicating - authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after decision of the Supreme court in Civil
Appeal preferred against the decision ofDelhi High court in Mangli Impex Lirnited 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
2018:DHC:9166-DB 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 58/2017j Shri. Surender Garg
VERSUS
Commissioner of
Customs and Others and order dated IS'*" December, 2017 passed in
CUSAA 61I2Q\1, Forecfy India Private Limited
Customs and Others and order dated IS'*" December, 2017 passed in
CUSAA 61I2Q\1, Forecfy India Private Limited
VERSUS
Commissioner of
CustomsInland ContainerDepot, Tughlakabad,New Delhi.
Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matterto the adjudicating authorityto awaitthejudgementof the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli
ImpexLimited v. Union ofIndia2016(335)ELT605(Del)is set aside.
The appeals preferred beforethe 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 notices. The said issue would be examined by the Tribunal without being influenced by the decision ofthe
Delhi High Courtin the case ofMangliImpexLimited(supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits ofthe appeals or on the procedure thatthe Tribunalshould adoptand follow.
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.
XV^T- DEEPA SHARMA,J.
APRIL 03,2018/MR 2018:DHC:9166-DB
CustomsInland ContainerDepot, Tughlakabad,New Delhi.
Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matterto the adjudicating authorityto awaitthejudgementof the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli
ImpexLimited v. Union ofIndia2016(335)ELT605(Del)is set aside.
The appeals preferred beforethe 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 notices. The said issue would be examined by the Tribunal without being influenced by the decision ofthe
Delhi High Courtin the case ofMangliImpexLimited(supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits ofthe appeals or on the procedure thatthe Tribunalshould adoptand follow.
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.
XV^T- DEEPA SHARMA,J.
APRIL 03,2018/MR 2018:DHC:9166-DB
JUDGMENT