JUDGMENT : D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1129/2018 in DB Custom Appeal No. 47/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1141/2018 in DB Custom Appeal No. 51/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1146/2018 in DB Custom Appeal No. 53/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1155/2018 in DB Custom Appeal No. 57/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1157/2018 in DB Custom Appeal No. 59/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1175/2018 in DB Custom Appeal No. 63/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1179/2018 in DB Custom Appeal No. 65/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1197/2018 in DB Custom Appeal No. 68/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1224/2018 in DB Custom Appeal No. 74/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1229/2018 in DB Custom Appeal No. 77/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1268/2018 in DB Custom Appeal No. 81/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1271/2018 in DB Custom Appeal No. 82/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1309/2018 in DB Custom Appeal No. 86/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1340/2018 in DB Custom Appeal No. 89/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1342/2018 in DB Custom Appeal No. 91/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1344/2018 in DB Custom Appeal No. 92/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1524/2018 in D.B. Custom Appeal No. 102/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1526/2018 in D.B. Custom Appeal No. 104/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1528/2018 in D.B. Custom Appeal No. 105/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1529/2018 in D.B. Custom Appeal No. 106/2018: D.B. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1525/2018 in DB Custom Appeal No. 103/2018: 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the contents of the applications and are satisfied that the interest of justice warrants that the delay should be condoned. 2. Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. The applications are allowed. D.B. Custom Appeal Nos. 57/2018, 59/2018, 65/2018, 77/2018, 89/2018 & 91/2018: Amended cause titles are taken on record. D.B. Custom Appeal Nos. 14/2018, 9/2018, 35/2018, 45/2018, 46/2018, 47/2018, 50/2018, 51/2018, 52/2018, 53/2018, 55/2018, 57/2018, 58/2018, 59/2018, 60/2018, 61/2018, 63/2018, 64/2018, 65/2018, 66/2018, 68/2018, 69/2018, 71/2018, 72/2018, 73/2018, 74/2018, 75/2018, 76/2018, 77/2018, 81/2018, 82/2018, 86/2018, 89/2018, 91/2018, 92/2018, 102/2018, 104/2018, 105/2018, 106/2018 & 103/2018: 3. 57/2018, 59/2018, 65/2018, 77/2018, 89/2018 & 91/2018: Amended cause titles are taken on record. D.B. Custom Appeal Nos. 14/2018, 9/2018, 35/2018, 45/2018, 46/2018, 47/2018, 50/2018, 51/2018, 52/2018, 53/2018, 55/2018, 57/2018, 58/2018, 59/2018, 60/2018, 61/2018, 63/2018, 64/2018, 65/2018, 66/2018, 68/2018, 69/2018, 71/2018, 72/2018, 73/2018, 74/2018, 75/2018, 76/2018, 77/2018, 81/2018, 82/2018, 86/2018, 89/2018, 91/2018, 92/2018, 102/2018, 104/2018, 105/2018, 106/2018 & 103/2018: 3. In all these appeals preferred by the Revenue, the common question urged is whether the CESTAT was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication to the Primary Adjudicating Official, to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after awaiting final decision by the Supreme Court in the appeal (by Special Leave) against Mangli Impex Limited Vs. Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 605 (Del). 4. Counsel for the respondents/assessees point out that the decision in Mangli Impex (supra) has been appealed against by the Revenue in the Supreme Court, where it is awaiting final adjudication. It is contended that the ratio in Mangli Impex (supra) has been accepted by the Rajasthan and Karnataka High Courts and that in both those cases the High Courts have consistently remitted the matter for fresh consideration by the Adjudicating Authority to assess jurisdiction. 5. It is also submitted that two decisions of the Delhi High Court i.e. in Pr. Commissioner of Customs Vs. Madhav Sikka & Ors. (Customs Appeal No. 29 & 30/2019-decided on 18.01.2019, and the decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Davinder Singh (Custom Appeal No. 202/2018-decided on 14.09.2018), have taken different view. 6. In Madhav Sikka (supra), the Delhi High Court observed as follows:- "5. Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examined and the decide the merits of the appeals. The respondent/assessee's right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra), are kept intact. In other words, the Tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of Mangli Impex (supra) and record separate findings. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli Impex (supra), would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the reasoning in Mangli Impex (supra), would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow." 7. In Davinder Singh (supra) however, earlier the Division Bench observed and directed as follows:- "4. The Court had then directed as follows:- "Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in these appeals, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India is set aside. The appeals preferred before the Tribunal are restored to their original position. The Tribunal would decide the appeal 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 Mangli 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. 5. Following the above decision, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the CESTAT which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeals without being influenced by the decision of this Court in Mangli Impex (supra). The Court, at the same time, like in the other cases, expresses no opinion on the merits or procedure that the Tribunal should adopt and follow." 8. Counsel for the assessees stressed that till the issue of jurisdiction is decided, adjudication on merits would not be appropriate and that the only adjudication on merits can be made by an authority which, in-fact, possesses jurisdiction. It was submitted, therefore, that in these circumstances, unless the matter is remitted to the Adjudicating Authority having jurisdiction, merits of the case ought not to be decided. 9. It was submitted, therefore, that in these circumstances, unless the matter is remitted to the Adjudicating Authority having jurisdiction, merits of the case ought not to be decided. 9. This Court is of the opinion that in larger interest of speedier resolution of the issues-rather than only deciding the question of jurisdiction, it would be appropriate that CESTAT should decide the merits of the appeals, i.e. the merits of the claims against the assessees, rather than remitting the matter for fresh overall consideration of the issues to each Adjudicating Authority. In the latter event, much time and energy will be spent, and avoidable delay would occur. However, on the other hand, if matters are remitted to the CESTAT for decision on merits, there would be a fair likelihood that many of them are resolved in favour of the assessees, in which event the way of further appeals and recourse to appellate proceedings by Revenue would be open. In these circumstances, the view in Davinder Singh (supra) commends acceptance. This Court is of the opinion that the view in other cases are not really precedential, but suggestive of our kind of approach, which in any event cannot be termed final, since the basic question regarding jurisdiction remains unresolved and would attain finality in the light of the Supreme Court's decision. 10. Accordingly, the impugned orders in the appeals are hereby set aside and all the matters are remitted to the CESTAT, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeals without being influenced by the decision in Mangli Impex (supra). At the same time, the final decision in Mangli Impex (supra), would bind all parties on the issue of jurisdiction, so that there is no question of its having to be re-agitated all over again. Furthermore, this Court is of the opinion that till final decision is taken in Mangli Impex (supra), no coercive action should be taken against the assessees in the event of any adverse order, nor should any prosecution be launched against them. These too shall await the final outcome of Mangli Impex (supra). 11. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications too are disposed of.