Pr. Commissioner Of Customs v. Sarang Wadhawan

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 197/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel.

versus SARANG WADHAWAN ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Karan Sachdev with Mr. Kunal Kapoor and Ms. Avisha Khatri, Advocates.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

O R D E R

% 02.08.2019 CM APPL. 31060/2019 (delay)

1. For the reasons explained in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the application is allowed.

CUSAA 197/2019

2. In this appeal, the Revenue‟s grievance is that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter „CESTAT‟) remanded the issues for reconsideration by the concerned Commissioner in view of the previous judgment of this Court in Mangli Impex Ltd. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del). This was on account of a dichotomy of judicial opinion with respect to the competence and jurisdiction under the amended Section 28 of CUSAA 197/2019 Page 1 of 3

the Customs Act, 1962 - one view holding that no jurisdiction laid with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereafter „DRI‟) and the other view endorsed in a subsequent judgment of this Court in Vipul Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors. (Cus.A.A.No.57 & 58 of 2017, dated 20.11.2017). Given that all these issues are pending for consideration before the Supreme Court, this Court in another order [Forech India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi (Cus.A.A.No.67/2017 dated 13.12.2017)], this Court disposed of the appeals in the following terms:

"3. It was recorded in the said order that the respondentRevenue had no objection if the remand order passed by the Tribunal was set aside with a request to the Tribunal to decide the issue on merit without taking into consideration the decision of the Delhi High Court in Mangli Impex Ltd. v. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del) which has been stayed by the Supreme Court.

4. For the reasons set out and stated in the said order, we answer the question of law in favour of the appellant with a direction to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits including the question of imposition of penalty and the right of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence who issued show cause notices.

5. The said adjudication would be without being influenced by the judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Ltd. (supra).

6. In other words, the Tribunal would independently apply its mind on the question of jurisdiction."

3. Having considered the submissions of the parties and also the materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that an identical approach is necessary in CUSAA 197/2019 Page 2 of 3

this case. Accordingly, following the order in Forech India India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the impugned order dated 14th June 2017 of the CESTAT is set aside. The appeal of the Respondent being Appeal No. C/507/2010 is restored to the file of the CESTAT. It is ordered that the CESTAT would independently apply its mind to the question of jurisdiction and also decide the appeal on merits - including the aspect of imposition of penalty if any.

4. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. S. MURALIDHAR, J.

TALWANT SINGH, J.

AUGUST 02, 2019 tr CUSAA 197/2019 Page 3 of 3