Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CUSAA 40/2018,41/2018,43/2018,44/2018,23/2018,24/2018, 25/2018,35/2018,36/2018,37/2018,39/2018,53/2018,55/2018, 56/2018,57/2018,58/2018,59/2018
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(GENERAL) Appellant
Through Mr.AmitBansal and Mr.Akhil Kulshrestha,Advocates.
CUSAA 40/2018,41/2018,43/2018,44/2018,23/2018,24/2018, 25/2018,35/2018,36/2018,37/2018,39/2018,53/2018,55/2018, 56/2018,57/2018,58/2018,59/2018
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(GENERAL) Appellant
Through Mr.AmitBansal and Mr.Akhil Kulshrestha,Advocates.
VERSUS
SAP INDIA PVT.LTD. Respondent
Through Mr.Yogendra Aldak,Mr.Karan Sachdev and Ms.Apeksha Mehta,Advocats.
Through Mr.Yogendra Aldak,Mr.Karan Sachdev and Ms.Apeksha Mehta,Advocats.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
02.04.2018 CM No.10612/2018 in CUSAA 40/2018 CM No.10614/2018 in CUSAA 41/2018
CM No.10618/2018 in CUSAA 44/2018 CM No.9063/2018 in CUSAA 23/2018
CM No.9065/2018in CUSAA 24/2018 CM No.9067/2018 in CUSAA 25/2018
CM No.9827/2018 in CUSAA 35/2018 CM No.9985/2018 in CUSAA 36/2018
CM No.9987/2018 in CUSAA 37/2018 CM No.9991/2018 in CUSAA 39/2018
CM No.11653/2018 in CUSAA 53/2018 CM No.11657/2018 in CUSAA 55/2018
CM No.11659/2018 in CUSAA 56/2018 CM No.11661/2018 in CUSAA 57/2018
2018:DHC:9163-DB CM No.11663/2018 in CUSAA 58/2018
CM No.11969/2018 in CUSAA 59/2018 Exemption allowed subjectto alljustexceptions.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
02.04.2018 CM No.10612/2018 in CUSAA 40/2018 CM No.10614/2018 in CUSAA 41/2018
CM No.10618/2018 in CUSAA 44/2018 CM No.9063/2018 in CUSAA 23/2018
CM No.9065/2018in CUSAA 24/2018 CM No.9067/2018 in CUSAA 25/2018
CM No.9827/2018 in CUSAA 35/2018 CM No.9985/2018 in CUSAA 36/2018
CM No.9987/2018 in CUSAA 37/2018 CM No.9991/2018 in CUSAA 39/2018
CM No.11653/2018 in CUSAA 53/2018 CM No.11657/2018 in CUSAA 55/2018
CM No.11659/2018 in CUSAA 56/2018 CM No.11661/2018 in CUSAA 57/2018
2018:DHC:9163-DB CM No.11663/2018 in CUSAA 58/2018
CM No.11969/2018 in CUSAA 59/2018 Exemption allowed subjectto alljustexceptions.
CUSAA 40/2018, 41/2018. 43/2018. 44/2018, 23/2018, 24/2018. 25/2018.
35/2018, 36/2018. 37/2018. 39/2018. 53/2018, 55/2018. 56/2018. 57/2018.
58/2018.59/2018 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 Limited v. Union of India 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 20^*^ November, 2017 passed in CUSAA 57/2017, Vipul
Overseas Private Limited
35/2018, 36/2018. 37/2018. 39/2018. 53/2018, 55/2018. 56/2018. 57/2018.
58/2018.59/2018 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 Limited v. Union of India 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 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 and order dated 13'^ December, 2017 passed in
Customs and Others and 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, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to awaitthejudgement of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli
ImpexLimited 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 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 of the
Delhi High Court in the case ofMangliImpex 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 oflaw is accordingly answered. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.There would be no order as to costs.
^ ^ ■ // C
SANJIV KHANNA,J.
CHANDjER SHEKHAR,J.
APRIL 02,2018 MR V /\
CustomsInland ContainerDepot, Tughlakabad,New Delhi.
Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to awaitthejudgement of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli
ImpexLimited 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 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 of the
Delhi High Court in the case ofMangliImpex 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 oflaw is accordingly answered. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.There would be no order as to costs.
^ ^ ■ // C
SANJIV KHANNA,J.
CHANDjER SHEKHAR,J.
APRIL 02,2018 MR V /\
JUDGMENT