The Rajasthan High Court held no substantial question of law arose in a custom appeal. With the jurisdiction issue pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal's remand order to the original authority was proper. The appeal was dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed and the stay application is also dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Custom Appeal No. 8412018
Cce And St Jaipur-I, Commissioner Of Customs Preventive Jodhpur Ncr , Building Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur Raj. 302005
Versus
Sh. Rajkumar Mansukhani MIS Rajasthan , Watch Manufacturers, A-21, Shri Ji Ki Mori Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur Rajasthan
----Respondent
: For Appeliant(s) Mr. Sandeep Pathak For Respondent(s)
<, I * - 2, , : .y
HON'BLE MR. 3USTICE KALPES~ SATYENDRA JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VUAY KUMAR VYAS
,; Delay in filing the appeal is c~~d,ijd$&i. The applications uls 5 ,! 2 . . . :.* .. ,,$$..., :, a,*;, of the Limitation Act is allowed. . b. .i ? * By way of this appeal,' the..'~pp611&nt has challenged the . .5 . judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has remitted back the matter.
Counsel for the appellant has framed following question of
"Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was justified and correct in law in passing an order or remand to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after passing the stay order wherein operaticn of the Order passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal preferred against
the decision of Delhi High Court in Mangli Impex Ltd. vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del.)"
Counsel for the appellant contended that the decision in the case of Mangli Impex Ltd. vs. Union of India; (2016) 335 E.L.T. 605 (Del.) ought not to have been relied upon by the Tribunal inasmuch the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 2045312016 vide order dated lSt August, 2016 has stayed the operation said order.
He has also relied upon the decision of Division Bench of . I 1 ---. Delhi High Court in case "'if Vipul Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs & Ors., CUSAA 5712017 decided on 20th November, 2017. f:
1nVihat view of the matter, he contended that the view taken by the Tribunal is required to ,be reversed : i and the matters be to *r ; be admitted on the substantiaipuej?~~~;fl~a,w framed above. .c..-g ', 2.". "." * < ',"" Counse'l for the respon4ent .;has -strongly relied upon the decision of 4th July, 2018, wherein w'hile considering the identical issue, the Karnataka High Court in case of Deepak M. Ganeyan vs. The Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax, Banyalore has observed as under:-
. .~ .. ; $?, 13-.-
'6. The Hon'ble High -Court3 ' $fa :y'hbai, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, hWvever a different view of the matter as noted 'by the learned Tribunal. The relevant portion of the observations of the learned Tribunal are quoted 'before fuf? ready reference: "3. From the record, it appears that a preliminary issue which emerges in the present appeal is regarding the jurisdiction of the DRI officers to issue show-cause notice under the Customs Act. The Apex Court in its decision in the case of CC Vs. Sayed Ali [2011 (265) 17 (SC)] held that DRI officers were not proper officers in terms of Section 2(34) of the Customs, Act, 1962.
Tribunal with a direction to examine the issue of jurisdiction afresh in the light of decision in Sayed Ali (supra). As already observed the entire issue is once again before the Hon'ble Apex Court, in view of the contrary decision of various High Courts. In these circumstances, I deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after the availability of Supreme Court decision in the case of Mangali Impex (supra) and then decide the merits of the case."
Thus, with the aforesaid observations, the learned Tribunal has remanded back the case to the original adjudicating. Authority to first, decide the question on jurisdiction. Rowever, the said question can be decided by the learned Adjudicating Authority only after the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. (supra) arising from the -Judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in 2016 (339) ELT A.49 (SC). The matter is thus, at this stage, pending before the said adjudicating Authority in which even the question of jurisdiction of the DRI officers or the original adjudicating Authority is yet to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The matter is, thus still pending before the original adjudicating Authority only.
be the 'proper authority' held so, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court will get seized of the matter and the contentions now raised before us can be raised before the said Authority."
We have heard counsel for the appellant.
In our considered opinion, since the issue is pending before the Supreme Court against both the judgments of Bombay High Court as well as Delhi High Court and the view taken by the another Division Bench, the decisioir ,of the Tribunal is proper . 2 .. .? 9 inasmuch as merely because the judgh&ncis stayed, the other Division Bench cannot take a contrary view.
in.^ that view of the matter, we are inclined to foilow the practice adopted by the Karnataka High Court in the aforesaid decision. r
In view of the above, no substantial q<estion of law arises.
Hence, the appeal stands .dismissed.
The stay application stands disboied of.
(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J
3 issues framed by the court
Whether CESTAT was justified in remitting the matter to the original authority pending the Supreme Court decision on DRI officer jurisdiction.
Whether a substantial question of law arises regarding the proper authority to adjudicate customs show-cause notices.
Whether the stay of the Delhi High Court judgment prevents other High Courts from taking a contrary view.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CC Vs. Sayed Ali [2011 (265) 17 (SC)]Referred¶18
Mangli Impex Ltd. vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del.)Referred¶12
Deepak M. Ganeyan vs. The Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax, BanyaloreReferred¶16
Vipul Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs & Ors., CUSAA 5712017Referred¶15
Sunil Gupta Vs. UOI [MANU/MH/2029/2014 : 2015 (315) ELT 167 (Bom.)]Referred¶23
Vuppalamritha Magnetic Components Ltd. Vs. DRI (Zonal Unit), Chennai [MANU/AP/0807/2016 : 2017 (345) ELT 161 (AP)]Referred¶23
3 provisions across 2 enactments
CCE And St Jaipur-I, Commissioner Of Customs Preventive Jodhpur Ncr
Sh. Rajkumar Mansukhani
Kalpesh Satyendra Jhawer
Vijay Kumar Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
