Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2016 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (10) TMI 19 - HC - Customs


Issues:
Challenge to Show Cause Notice jurisdiction under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The petition challenges a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner, Lindt Exports, through its Sole Proprietor, contests the validity of the SCN dated 24th December 2004. The petitioner argues that prior to 8th April 2011, officers of the DRI were not 'proper officers' under the Customs Act, hence lacked the authority to issue or adjudicate SCNs. The petitioner relies on legal precedents to support the contention that a decree passed without jurisdiction is void ab initio and can be challenged at any stage.

The respondent, represented by the Senior Standing counsel for the DRI, opposes the relief sought in the petition. It is highlighted that the impugned SCN has been adjudicated, resulting in an order confirming the demand raised in the SCN. The petitioner's subsequent appeal to the CESTAT required a pre-deposit, which was not made in a timely manner. Despite delays, the petitioner eventually made the pre-deposit, leading to a series of legal proceedings, including appeals and applications to various courts.

The Court's analysis includes a reference to a previous judgment interpreting Section 28(11) of the Customs Act, emphasizing that the amendment aimed to address administrative issues but did not fully resolve concerns regarding the authority of customs officers issuing SCNs. The Court notes the extensive litigation history of the petitioner, culminating in multiple failed attempts to challenge the SCN or related orders. The Court deems the petitioner's delay in raising jurisdictional issues as an abuse of the legal process, refusing to entertain the petition due to the repeated attempts to litigate the same matter after previous failures.

In the final decision, the Court dismisses the writ petition and related applications, emphasizing the petitioner's numerous unsuccessful attempts to challenge the SCN jurisdiction. The Court refrains from awarding costs in this case, considering the circumstances.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates