Kerala HC: Persons With Down Syndrome Get Protection and Guardianship under National Trust Act, 1999  ||  J&K&L HC: Contractual Staff Cannot Claim Payment Beyond Contract Period Without Proving Work  ||  J&K&L HC: Revisional Powers U/S 15 Must be Exercised in Reasonable Time, Not After 20-Year Delay  ||  MP High Court: Revoking Building Permission Without Fraud Proof Violates Right to Property  ||  Madras HC: Centre’s Consent For Remission is Needed only When Sentence under Central Act is Ongoing  ||  Delhi HC: Private School Employees Entitled to Child Care Leave Equivalent to Government Employees  ||  Supreme Court Has Released Draft Regulations on AI Use in the Judiciary and Invited Public Feedback  ||  Supreme Court: MMDR Act Royalty Hikes Prevail over Contractual Terms  ||  Delhi HC: Daughter-In-Law Has No Independent Right in Mother-In-Law’s Self-Acquired House  ||  SC: Prolonged Separation Can Constitute Cruelty and Desertion    

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 It posited that if the Assessee had withdrawn its petition subsequent to the interim order, limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act may be available in a subsequent show-cause notice for demand by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