2003 (5) TMI 60 - SC - Customs

Demand (Customs) - Notification No. 64/88-Customs dated 1-3-1988 - Held that - Following decision of Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer and Research Centre 2001 (8) TMI 113 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA it is held that provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act were not attracted because the said section covers cases of duty not levied short levied or erroneously refunded etc. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal requires to be set aside as there was no question of complying with the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. - in such cases provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act were not attracted because the said section covers cases of duty not levied short levied or erroneously refunded etc. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal requires to be set aside as there was no question of complying with the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. - Decided in favour Revenue.

Summary

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Department against the Central Excise and Gold Appellate Tribunal's order. The Tribunal's decision was set aside as the demand for duty was time-barred and issued without jurisdiction. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for further consideration in accordance with law.