The Commissioner Of Customs v. Sap India Pvt Ltd

$-20 to 24 I I , , "

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CUSAA 94/2018, CUSAA 95/2018, 96/2018, 97/2018 & 98/2018 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT AND GENERAL) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing Counsel versus SAP INDIA PVT LTD .

Respondent Through:

Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Karan Sachdev and Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

ORDER

% 11.04.2018 CM No.13888/2018 in CUSAA No.94/2m8 CM No.13889/2018 in CUSAA No.95/2018 CM No.13890/2018 in CUSAA No.96/2018 CM No.13891/2018 in CUSAA No.97/2018 CM No.13892/2018 in CUSAA No.98/2018 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

■Ji . The applications are disposed of.

CUSAA Nos.94/2018. 95/2018. 96/2018. 97/2018 & 98/2018 With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the following substantial question of law is framed:- "Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT') was justified and correct in passing an order of remand to the original By:AMULYA

adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after decision of the Supreme court in Civil Appeal preferred against the decision of Delhi High court in Mangli Impex Limited v. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del.)?"

Counsel for the respondent states that the impugned order may be quashed and the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision without expressing any opinion on merits. Counsel for the parties rely on orders dated 20th November, 2017 passed in CUSAA 57/2017, Vipul Overseas Private Limited versus Commissioner of Customs and Others and CUSAA 58/2017, Shri Surender Garg versus Commissioner of Customs and Others and order dated 13th December, 2017 passed in CUSAA 67/2017, Forech India Private Limited versus Commissioner of Customs Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi.

Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudieating authority to await the judgement of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangali Impex Limited v. 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 Mangali Impex 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.

SANJIV KHANNA, J CHANDER"

APRIL 11,2018 tp