C.M. Appl. No. 30946/2018 (Delay) in CUSAA 168/2018
C.M. Appl. No. 30948/2018 (Delay) in CUSAA 169/2018
C.M. Appl. No. 30953/2018 (Delay) in CUSAA 170/2018
C.M. Appl. No. 30955/2018 (Delay) in CUSAA 171/2018
C.M. Appl. No. 30957/2018 (Delay) in CUSAA 172/2018
C.M. Appl. No. 30959/2018 (Delay) in CUSAA 173/2018
For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed
CUSAA No.168 to 172/2018 Page 2 of 4
and the delay in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.
Applications stand disposed of.
CUSAA 168/2018, CUSAA 169/2018, CUSAA 170/2018, CUSAA
171/2018, CUSAA 172/2018, CUSAA 173/2018
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:
Source: Indian Kanoon