Madras High Court Refuses to Entertain Plea Challenging Handing Over of Sceptre to Widow  ||  Mad. HC: Merely Smelling Alcohol in Breath Not Sufficient Ground to Attribute Contributory Negligence  ||  Del. HC: Central Govt.’s Circular Banning Sale and Breeding of 'Dangerous & Ferocious Dogs' Quashed  ||  Calcutta High Court: Notice Preventing Forest Dwellers from Entering Forest Lands Set Aside  ||  Del. HC: Proceed. Under SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act Can Continue Parallelly as They are Complimentary  ||  Ori. HC: Proper Infrastructure and Manpower Must be Provided by State to Forensic Labs  ||  Bom. HC: Trampoline Park in Lonavla Restrained from Using Trademark or Character of Mr. Bean  ||  Allahabad HC: In Execution Proceedings, Challenge Cannot be Made to Arbitral Award u/s 47 of CPC  ||  Mad. HC: Basic Structure of Consti. & Democracy Demolishes When Electors Gratified During Election  ||  Cal. HC: WB Government Directed to Finalise Minimum Wage of Tea Plantation Workers Within Six Weeks    

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 It posited that if the Assessee had withdrawn its petition subsequent to the interim order, limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act may be available in a subsequent show-cause notice for demand by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