2024 (8) TMI 859 - HC - Customs

Recovery of short levied duty alongwith interest - period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (9) of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The question whether Ext.P10 is barred by limitation or not is a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition. Therefore, the remedy open to the appellant is to prefer a statutory appeal and take the limitation plea before the appellate authority. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the impugned judgment, the Learned Single Judge had already entered a finding regarding limitation on merits against the appellant, and as such, the appellate authority cannot take a different stand. Since the Learned Single Judge has decided to relegate the appellant to the appellate remedy, a finding on the question of limitation ought not to have been entered into as rightly submitted by the Learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellate authority is directed to consider the appeal on merits untrammeled by the findings in the impugned judgment. The time during which the appellant has been prosecuting the writ petition shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

The High Court of Kerala heard a writ appeal challenging a judgment regarding the import of 'Clear Float Glass' by a company engaged in trading of construction materials. The appellant challenged the order demanding differential duty and interest, arguing that the show cause notice was issued by an incompetent authority and the order was beyond the limitation period. The court found against the appellant on both grounds but directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits without being bound by the findings of the writ judgment. The writ appeal was disposed of with this modification.