NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

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 It posited that if the Assessee had withdrawn its petition subsequent to the interim order, limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act may be available in a subsequent show-cause notice for demand by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