Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) Commissionerate v. Karan Gambhir

$~12-15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 175/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) COMMISSIONERATE ..... Appellant versus KARAN GAMBHIR ..... Respondent + CUSAA 176/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), COMMISSIONERATE ..... Appellant versus DD INDUSTRIES LTD.

..... Respondent + CUSAA 177/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) COMMISSIONERATE ..... Appellant versus NARENDRA AGGARWAL ..... Respondent + CUSAA 178/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) COMMISSIONERATE ..... Appellant versus D.D. INDUSTRIES LTD.

..... Respondent

Present :

Mr. Amit Bansal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr.Akhil Kulshrestha, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Kunal Kapoor, Advocate for the respondents.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R

% 10.08.2018 CM APPL. 32120/2018 (condonation of delay )in CUSAA 175/2018 CM APPL. 32125/2018 (condonation of delay )in CUSAA 176/2018 CM APPL. 32131/2018 (condonation of delay )in CUSAA 177/2018 CM APPL. 32152/2018 (condonation of delay )in CUSAA 178/2018 Issue notice.

Mr. Kunal Kapoor, Advocate accepts notice.

For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed. CUSAA 175/2018, CUSAA 176/2018, CUSAA 177/2018 and CUSAA 178/2018 In these appeals, 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 Limited v. 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 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. 1t was recorded in the said order that the respondent-Revenue 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 lmpex Limited Vs. 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 lmpex Limited (supra).

6. In other words, the Tribunal would independently apply its mind on the question of jurisdiction." 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 these cases. Accordingly, following the order in Forech India (supra), these appeals are allowed and 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.

The appeals are allowed in part in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J A. K. CHAWLA, J AUGUST 10, 2018 rc