Commissioner Of Customs v. Novus International

$~112 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 110/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through:

Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Advocate versus NOVUS INTERNATIONAL ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Meenakshi Rawat, Mr. Rajesh Chatri, Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

As per office report, the appellant did not file process fee. However, Ms. Meenakshi Rawat, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.,

CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli

Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~77 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 14/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through:

Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Advocate versus BHAI GEHLA SINGH JASWANT SINGH ..... Respondent Through:

Counsel for the respondent Presence not given

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:-

"Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other

cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~142 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 331/2018 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,(GENERAL) ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus SAP INDIA PVT. LTD ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Karan Sachdev, Ms. Avisha Khatri, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

As per office report, the appellant did not file process fee. However, Mr. Karan Sachdev, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.,

CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli

Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~143 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 332/2018 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, (GENERAL) NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus SAP INDIA PVT. LTD ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Karan Sachdev, Ms. Avisha Khatri, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

As per office report, the appellant did not file process fee. However, Mr. Karan Sachdev, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of

appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect

to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~144 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 333/2018 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus SAP INDIA PVT. LTD., ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Karan Sachdev, Ms. Avisha Khatri, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

As per office report, the appellant did not file process fee. However, Mr. Karan Sachdev, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of

appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect

to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~145 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 334/2018 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Karan Sachdev, Ms. Avisha Khatri, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

As per office report, the appellant did not file process fee. However, Mr. Karan Sachdev, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.,

CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli

Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~146 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 335/2018 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus SAP INDIA PVT. LTD ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Karan Sachdev, Ms. Avisha Khatri, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

As per office report, the appellant did not file process fee. However, Mr. Karan Sachdev, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of

appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect

to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~141 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 330/2018 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,(GENERAL) ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus SAP INDIA. PVT. LTD ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Karan Sachdev, Ms. Avisha Khatri, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

As per office report, the appellant did not file process fee. However, Mr. Karan Sachdev, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.,

CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli

Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~113 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 111/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus M/S PARADISE INTERNATIONAL ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

As per office report, the appellant did not file process fee. However, Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.,

CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli

Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~110 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 108/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through:

Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Advocate versus M/ S L.D. INTERNATIONAL ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

As per office report, the appellant did not file process fee. However, Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.,

CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli

Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~109 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 87/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus M/S UNIVERSAL ENTERPRISES ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

As per office report, the appellant did not file process fee. However, Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.,

CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli

Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~108 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 86/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus SMT. KAVITA AGARWAL, ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

As per office report, the appellant did not file process fee. However, Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.,

CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli

Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~106 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 84/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus ALLIED INDUSTRIES ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

As per office report, the appellant did not file process fee. However, Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.,

CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli

Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 310/2018 PR COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus D. BHANDARI.

..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Karan Sachdev, Ms. Avisha Khatri, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

As per office report, the appellant did not file process fee. However, Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.,

CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli

Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 252/2018 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus HANUMAN AGARWAL ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

As per office report, the appellant did not file process fee. However, Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.,

CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli

Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 75/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus DIWESH JOSHI, ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

As per office report, the appellant did not file process fee. However, Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.,

CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli

Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 65/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus SOCIETY RUBBER INDUSTRIES ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

As per office report, the appellant did not file process fee. However, Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.,

CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli

Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~140 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 107/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus M/ S NIKITA OVERSEAS, ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

Issue notice. Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other

cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~138 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 105/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus M/ S RADHIKA INTERNATIONAL ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

Issue notice. Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other

cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~137 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 104/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus M/S GALAXY IMPEX ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

Issue notice. Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other

cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~136 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 103/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus SMT. NIRMALA AGARWAL, ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

Issue notice. Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other

cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 67/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus DINESH GUPTA ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

Issue notice. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other

cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 66/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus DIWESH JOSHI ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

Issue notice. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other

cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 101/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel for ITD versus SH. RAM NIWAS AGARWAL, ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha, Ms. Devika Jain, Mr. Anant Mann, Advocate Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

Issue notice. Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.,

CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli

Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 100/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant versus SH. HANUMAN AGARWAL, ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

Issue notice. Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.,

CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli

Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 99/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through:

Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Advocate versus M/ S METONE ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

Issue notice. Ms. Ria Chanda, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other

cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 97/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through:

Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Advocate versus SH PRAVEEN KUMAR GOEL ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Deepak Kumar Mishra, Ms.

Palak Nenwani, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

Issue notice. Mr. Deepak Kumar Mishra, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other

cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 93/2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through:

Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Advocate versus SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Karan Sachdev, Ms. Avisha Khatri, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.03.2019 1.

The question urged by the appellant in this appeal is as under:- "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter „CESTAT‟) was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the concerned official to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the appeal pending in the Supreme Court against the reported judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del.) is decided?"

2.

Issue notice. Mr. Karan Sachdev, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.

It is submitted, at the outset, by learned counsel for the appellant that in the identical circumstances, where a similar issue was sought to be urged, this Court had passed an order in a batch of appeals [Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.,

CUSAA 40/2018 and other connected matters decided on 02.04.2018].

4.

The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (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 of Mangli Implex Limited (supra). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the 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."

5.

Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli

Impex (supra) would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow.

6.

The Tribunal is directed to issue reasonable notice to the assessee for hearing the appeal before it.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 27, 2019 pkb