TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court reviews jurisdictional issue under Customs Act, sets expedited hearing for appeal</h1> <h3>Dinkar Y. Ghanekar Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Import)</h3> The High Court entertained an appeal regarding the jurisdiction of the Additional Director General, DRI to issue a show-cause notice under the Customs ... Jurisdiction - power to issue SCN - whether Additional Director General, DRI is proper officer to issue SCN or not - HELD THAT:- The issue raised herein on the question of jurisdiction seems to be concluded in favour of the Revenue by the decision of this Court in SUNIL GUPTA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2014 (12) TMI 151 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. However, as identical questions have been admitted post the order in Sunil Gupta, the issue raised herein would require consideration. The hearing of this appeal is expedited - To be heard along with Customs Appeal No. 53 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 2338 of 2016 [SUN POLYTRON INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2017 (4) TMI 1449 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]]. Issues:Jurisdiction of Additional Director General, DRI to issue a show-cause notice under the Customs Act.Analysis:The High Court entertained an appeal regarding the jurisdiction of the Additional Director General, DRI to issue a show-cause notice under the Customs Act, framed as a substantial question of law. The Court noted that the issue was not raised before the Tribunal but considered it due to its jurisdictional nature. Reference was made to a similar question admitted in a previous case. The Counsel for the Revenue cited a previous decision where a similar contention was dismissed post an amendment to the Act. On the contrary, the appellant's Counsel referred to other orders and decisions supporting the appellant's position, including a decision by the Delhi High Court. The Counsel for the Revenue highlighted that the Delhi High Court decision favoring the appellant had been stayed by the Apex Court.The Court acknowledged that the issue seemed to be in favor of the Revenue based on a previous decision. However, considering the admission of similar questions post that decision, the Court deemed it necessary to further consider the issue of jurisdiction raised in the present case. The hearing of the appeal was expedited, and the Counsel for the Revenue waived service. The case was scheduled to be heard along with other related matters, with liberty to apply for further proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
