The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has directed the appellant/assessee to challenge Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence (DRI action) before Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) citing Cannon Judgement.
The bench of Justice Rmt.Teekaa Raman and Justice N.Senthilkumar has observed that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s Canon India Private Limited, now the validity of the action of the DRI in issue show cause notice being appealed, the appellant has to approach the appellate authority namely, the CESTAT Act.
The Department of Revenue Intelligence, (DRI) Mumbai, had initiated an investigation against M/s.Suvidh Overseas with respect to the import of textile fabrics duty-free.
The allegation of the DRI is that the textile fabrics were cleared using the DEEC license, which has an ‘Actual User’ condition and instead of manufacturing and exporting, the same were diverted locally into the Indian market.
Accordingly, the DRI had issued a show cause notice dated 18.05.2007 to M/s. Suvidh Overseas, the appellant and other notices proposing to confiscate the seized goods.
The DRI had issued another show cause notice dated 24.10.2008 proposing to demand customs duty jointly and severally from M/s.Suvidh Overseas, Shri. Kuresh T. Rajkotwala and the appellant.
The notice proposed to impose a penalty on the appellant and other notices. However, the respondent has passed the impugned order-in-original, demanding duty and imposing penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.
Subsequently, the department has issued a corrigendum dated 30.05.2018 wherein, he changed the Section for imposing penalties from 114A to 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the order on the ground that the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) have no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice. The Single Judge, disposed of the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had not challenged the virus or validity of Section 28(11) of the Customs Act 1962 and further directed the appellant to file a statutory appeal.
The Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s Canon India Private Limited held that “Where the orders-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 28 have been challenged before the High Courts on the ground of maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show cause notices, the respective High Court shall grant eight weeks’ time to the respective assessee to prefer appropriate appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).”
The CESTAT dismissed the Writ Appeal with liberty to the appellant to approach the CESTAT Act, within a period of eight weeks.
Case Details
Case Title: Deepak Bajaj Versus The Commissioner of Customs
Case No.: W.A.(MD)No.376 of 2019 and C.M.P(MD)No.3330 of 2019
Date: 19.11.2024
Counsel For Petitioner: A.Hari Radhakrishnan
Counsel For Respondent: R.Baskaran
