Delhi High Court
Vipul Overseas Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs & Ors. on 20 November, 2017
$~3 & 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
Date of decision: 20th November, 2017
3
+ CUSAA 57/2017
VIPUL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. A.K. Prasad, Ms.Priyanka Goel,
Advocates.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Sanjeev Narula, SSC for Customs
with Mr.Abhshek Ghai, Advocate.
4
+ CUSAA 58/2017
SHRI. SURENDER GARG ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. A.K. Prasad, Ms.Priyanka Goel,
Advocates.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Sanjeev Narula, SSC for Customs
with Mr.Abhshek Ghai, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL)
On the last date of hearing, we had passed the following order in the
aforesaid appeals :
"2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
grounds of appeal raised before the Tribunal did not relate
to rate of duty and hence, these writ petitions would be
maintainable before this Court.
CUSAA Nos. 57/2017 & 58/2017 Page 1 of 4
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
matter should be examined by the Tribunal on merits
including the contention of the appellants that an officer of
the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence could not have
issued the show cause notice. It is submitted that the
Tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide the aforesaid
aspect uninfluenced by the judgment of this court in
Mangli Impex Limited v. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT
605 (Del.), operation of which has been stayed by the
Supreme Court.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he
wants to obtain instructions before he makes any
submission before the court.
5. Re-list these appeals on 20th November, 2017".
2. Learned counsel for the respondents has obtained instructions and
states that they have no objection, if the remand order is set aside and
Tribunal is requested to decide the issue on merits without taking into
consideration the decision of the Delhi High Court in Mangli Impex Limited
v. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del.), which is stayed by the
Supreme Court.
3. A copy of the said letter has been shown to the learned counsel for the
appellants, who states that he does not have any objection.
4. In view of statements made, we frame the following substantial
question of law:
Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal ('CESTAT') was justified and
correct in law in passing an order of remand to the
CUSAA Nos. 57/2017 & 58/2017 Page 2 of 4
original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue
of jurisdiction, after decision of the Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal preferred against the decision of Delhi
High Court in Mangli Impex Limited v. Union of
India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del.)?
5. The undisputed position is that two show cause notices dated 10th
April, 2008 were issued to the appellants by the Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence ('DRI' for short) and original adjudication order was passed on
14th October, 2014. The final order was challenged before the CESTAT,
who have vide impugned order dated 14th July, 2017, remanded the matter
back to the Adjudicating Authority to await the decision of the Supreme
Court in Mangli Impex Limited (supra). The appellants and respondents
have assertively highlighted that the original order was passed after more
than 6 ½ years. Thus, remand to the original adjudicating authority at this
stage, they submit, would cause prejudice and harassment to the appellants
and respondents. The submission is that the contentions of the appellants
should be decided on merits by the CESTAT including imposition of penalty
and right of the DRI to issue show cause notice. The appellants accept that
the adjudication would be uninfluenced by the judgment in the case of
Mangli Impex Limited (supra), operation of which has been stayed by the
Supreme Court. In other words, the Tribunal would independently apply its
mind on the question of jurisdiction.
6. In view of the aforesaid position, the substantial question of law is
answered in favour of the appellants and the order of the Tribunal dated 6th
July, 2017 is set aside. The Tribunal will decide the appeals on merits,
including the question of jurisdiction of the officers of DRI to issue the show
cause notice, without being influenced by the decision of the Delhi High
CUSAA Nos. 57/2017 & 58/2017 Page 3 of 4
Court in the case of Mangli Impex Limited (supra), which has been stayed
by the Supreme Court.
7. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of
these appeals or on the procedure that the Tribunal should adopt.
8. These appeals are disposed of in the above terms. There would be no
order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
NOVEMBER 20, 2017
j
