2010 (4) TMI 421 - HC - Customs

Demand - Limitation - the petitioner, the demand raised in the show cause notice pertains to the period from October 1996 to January 1998, whereas the show cause notice has been issued on 4th May 2009 and as such, in view of the provisions of section 28(1) of the Act the show cause notice is ex facie time-barred. Show cause notice issued pursuant to directions of Supreme Court issued in 2009. Held that- Supreme court order expressly requiring that assessee not to raise plea of limitation. Commissioner duty bound to abide by directions of Supreme Court and SCN issued valid. Thus, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the directions issued by the Supreme Court, the remedy lies before the Supreme Court and not before this Court.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to show cause notice dated 4th May 2009 for customs duty, interest, penalty, and confiscation.
2. Time limitation under section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Validity of impugned show cause notice issued beyond the statutory limitation period.
4. Compliance with Supreme Court directions regarding the show cause notice.
5. Allegation of the order of the Supreme Court being per incuriam.
6. Jurisdiction to challenge Supreme Court orders.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged a show cause notice dated 4th May 2009 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-II, demanding customs duty, interest, penalty, and confiscation of imported capital goods under the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice pertained to the period from October 1996 to January 1998, making it time-barred under section 28(1) of the Act, which specifies a limitation period for issuing such notices.

3. The petitioner argued that the impugned show cause notice, issued beyond the statutory limitation period, was barred by limitation as the Act does not provide any authority to condone such delays, making the notice unsustainable.

4. The Supreme Court directed the Commissioner to issue the show cause notice, instructing the parties to maintain status quo until the matter's resolution within three months, which the Commissioner failed to comply with.

5. The petitioner alleged that the Supreme Court's order, which disregarded the provisions of the Customs Act and the Central Excise Act, was per incuriam, citing precedents to support the contention.

6. The Court held that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the Supreme Court's directions, the appropriate remedy lay before the Supreme Court itself, not the High Court, thereby dismissing the petition summarily for lacking merit.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment comprehensively, outlining the arguments presented by the petitioner, the compliance with Supreme Court directions, and the Court's final decision based on the legal principles and precedents cited.