P&H High Court: Re-Investigation Cannot Nullify Existing Acquittal Despite Breach of Stay Order  ||  Gujarat HC: Illegal Mining Vehicle Complaints Must Be Filed Before Sessions Court, Not Magistrate  ||  Delhi High Court Lays Down Registry Directions for Dealing with Insufficiently Stamped Arbitral Award  ||  Delhi High Court: Victims Need No Leave to Appeal Acquittal or Conviction for Lesser Offence  ||  SC: Limitation Act Inapplicable to Revisions under Karnataka Land Revenue Act  ||  SC: Banks Can Invoke SARFAESI for Loans Acquired from NBFCs Outside the Act  ||  SC: Gujarat Prohibition Act Does not Bar Interim Seized Vehicle Release  ||  Supreme Court Quashes Rs. 425-Crore Customs Penalty Based on AI-Generated Fake Case Laws  ||  SC: Guilt cannot be Presumed Solely Due to Collusion Allegations against Investigating Officer  ||  SC: Clarificatory Statement Does Not Constitute a Binding Undertaking for Contempt Proceedings    

D.R. Enterprises Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (12 Aug 2015)

Assessee cannot argue lack of jurisdiction after pursuing adjudication on merits

MANU/SC/0856/2015

Customs

In a case where the Assessee after receiving a favourable interim order from the High Court chose to pursue adjudication on merits before the High Court, the Supreme Court said it could not subsequently argue a lack of jurisdiction of the court. It posited that if the Assessee had withdrawn its petition subsequent to the interim order, limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act may be available in a subsequent show-cause notice for demand by the Department.

Relevant : Section 28 Customs Act, 1962 Act Gotak Patel Volkart Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Belgaon MANU/SC/0400/1987 Nehawas Steel Traders v. Union of India MANU/MH/0413/1993

Tags : CUSTOMS   LIMITATION   SECTION 28  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved