Customs duty demand notices stand where Supreme Court ruling settles the levy date and prior overruled precedent cannot revive the challenge.

Demand notices issued in line with a Supreme Court ruling could not be challenged by relying on an earlier Division Bench order that merely followed a Full Bench view later overruled by the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court had already settled the relevant date for levy of customs duty, so the earlier order gave no independent basis to resist the demand. The objection that the impugned notice was invalid for lack of a show cause notice was also not entertained, because the dispute had already been concluded in the connected matter and any further clarification or relief had to be sought from the Supreme Court. The writ petitions accordingly did not succeed, and the demand notices remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether demand notices issued pursuant to the Supreme Court's ruling could be assailed on the basis of an earlier Division Bench order passed in terms of a Full Bench decision that had since been overruled. (ii) Whether the impugned notice was invalid for want of a show cause notice.

Issue (i): Whether demand notices issued pursuant to the Supreme Court's ruling could be assailed on the basis of an earlier Division Bench order passed in terms of a Full Bench decision that had since been overruled.

Analysis: The earlier Division Bench order merely followed the Full Bench view and did not create an independent foundation for resisting the demand once the Full Bench decision had been overruled by the Supreme Court. The relevant date for levy of customs duty stood settled by the Supreme Court against the petitioners' contention, and the earlier order could not be relied upon to defeat the demand notices.

Conclusion: The challenge to the demand notices on this ground failed and was answered against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned notice was invalid for want of a show cause notice.

Analysis: This contention was not entertained because the controversy stood concluded by the Supreme Court's decision in the connected matter, and the petitioners were left to seek any appropriate clarification or relief from the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The challenge to the notice on this ground was not accepted.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions did not succeed, and the demand notices were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand founded on a Supreme Court ruling cannot be defeated by relying on an earlier lower-court decision that has been overruled, and a concluded controversy will not be reopened in writ proceedings on the same basis.

---