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>Customs Show Cause Notice Upheld: Timely Adjudication Mandated Under Section 28(9) of Customs Act</h1> <h3>Nalin Gupta Versus Commissioner of Customs Chennai</h3> HC dismissed writ petition challenging customs SCN, directing respondent to complete adjudication proceedings within statutory timelines under Section ... Challenge to SCN - forbearing the respondent from adjudicating the SCN being barred by limitation in terms of Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962 - preliminary objection of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 28.09.2022 is non-est in law and time barred in view of Section 28(9) of the Act - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the petitioner has filed his reply and the matter is pending at the stage of cross examination, the respondent is directed to complete the entire process and conclude the proceedings in terms of Section 28(9) of the Act. Petition disposed off. In the case before the Madras High Court, presided over by The Honourable Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, the petitioner challenged a Show Cause Notice (SCN) No.131/2022-Gr-4 dated 28.09.2022, claiming it was barred by limitation under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were deemed concluded under the second proviso of Section 28(9) since the respondent failed to determine the duty or interest within the stipulated one-year period. Despite participating in the process and filing a reply, the petitioner contended that the adjudication lacked jurisdiction and sought judicial intervention.The respondent, represented by Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, argued that the petitioner had engaged in the enquiry process and the matter was currently at the cross-examination stage, with proceedings adjourned in accordance with Section 28(9).The Court acknowledged the petitioner's preliminary objection regarding the SCN being time-barred. However, given the stage of the proceedings, the Court directed the respondent to complete the process and conclude the adjudication as per Section 28(9) of the Act. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and no costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
