P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 It posited that if the Assessee had withdrawn its petition subsequent to the interim order, limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act may be available in a subsequent show-cause notice for demand by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 2024 - All Rights Reserved