9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 903 - HC - CustomsValidity of SCN - perceived statutory requirement of pre-notice consultation being undertaken before the issuance of a SCN - HELD THAT - The concept of pre-notice consultation stands incorporated only in Section 28 of the Act and more particularly in terms of the First Proviso appended to sub-section (1) of that provision. The action which is proposed to be taken in terms of the SCN, however, rests on the provisions of Section 124 and the 1995 Rules. Those provisions neither mirror nor adopt the principles of pre-notice consultation. There are no merit in the challenge raised to the impugned SCN - petition dismissed.
Issues:
The validity of the Show Cause Notice u/s 124 and Section 75(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 16A of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. Summary: The petitioner challenged the validity of the Show Cause Notice dated 03 February 2022 u/s 124 and Section 75(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with Rule 16A of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. The SCN proposed actions including confiscation of goods, rejection of FOB value, re-determination of drawback claims, recovery of inadmissible drawback amounts, interest recovery, and imposition of penalties. The petitioner contended that pre-notice consultation was mandatory, citing legal precedents and circulars. However, the court found that the requirement of pre-notice consultation is only in Section 28 of the Act, not in Section 124 or the 1995 Rules. Consequently, the challenge to the SCN was dismissed, and the petition failed. In conclusion, the High Court of Delhi upheld the validity of the Show Cause Notice issued u/s 124 and Section 75(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with Rule 16A of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. The court clarified that the concept of pre-notice consultation is not a mandatory prerequisite for actions under Section 124 and the 1995 Rules. Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioner was found to be without merit, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
|
