Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2025 (3) TMI 1150 - HC - Customs

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        DRI show cause notice jurisdiction challenge resolved under Section 28 Customs Act following Canon-II directions The Delhi HC disposed of a petition challenging a show cause notice dated 1st May, 2019 issued by DRI Mumbai Zonal Unit regarding jurisdiction of DRI ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            DRI show cause notice jurisdiction challenge resolved under Section 28 Customs Act following Canon-II directions

                            The Delhi HC disposed of a petition challenging a show cause notice dated 1st May, 2019 issued by DRI Mumbai Zonal Unit regarding jurisdiction of DRI officials under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. Following SC directions in Canon-II case, the court held that adjudication of the show cause notice should be restored to the appropriate adjudicating authority. The proceedings were directed to continue before the proper adjudicating authority in accordance with law.




                            ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

                            The core legal issue considered in this judgment is the jurisdiction of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officials to issue show cause notices and pass adjudication orders under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The question arises from the Supreme Court's decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, which initially held that DRI officials were not 'proper officers' for the purposes of Section 28. This judgment examines whether the DRI has the authority to issue such notices and whether the proceedings initiated by them are valid.

                            ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

                            Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

                            The legal framework revolves around Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, which deals with the recovery of duties not levied or paid. The Supreme Court's decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. initially concluded that DRI officials were not proper officers under this section, based on the statutory interpretation that only officers who conducted the original assessment could undertake reassessment.

                            Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

                            The Court's interpretation in the present judgment is influenced by the Supreme Court's subsequent review decision, which clarified that DRI officers were indeed appointed as officers of customs through specific notifications and circulars. The review decision pointed out that these notifications and circulars were not considered in the original Canon India judgment, leading to an incorrect conclusion about the jurisdiction of DRI officers.

                            Key Evidence and Findings

                            The key evidence includes Notification No. 19/90 and Notification No. 17/2002, which appointed DRI officers as customs officers, and Circular No. 4/99, which empowered them to issue show cause notices under Section 28. The Supreme Court's review decision emphasized these documents to validate the jurisdiction of DRI officers.

                            Application of Law to Facts

                            In applying the law to the facts, the Court determined that the show cause notice dated 1st May 2019, issued by the DRI Mumbai Zonal Unit, falls within the scope of the Supreme Court's review decision. As per the directions in paragraph 168 (vi) (a) of the Canon-II judgment, the adjudication of this notice is to be restored to the appropriate authority.

                            Treatment of Competing Arguments

                            The competing argument that DRI officials lacked jurisdiction was addressed by the Supreme Court's review decision, which clarified that the original judgment failed to consider relevant notifications and circulars. The review decision effectively overruled the jurisdictional challenge by establishing that DRI officers are proper officers under Section 28.

                            Conclusions

                            The conclusion reached is that the proceedings initiated by the DRI, including the show cause notice under challenge, are valid and should proceed before the appropriate adjudicating authority. The petitioner is given 60 days to respond to the show cause notice, with the provision for a personal hearing.

                            SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

                            Core Principles Established

                            The significant holding is that DRI officers are proper officers for the purposes of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and are competent to issue show cause notices. This is based on the Supreme Court's review decision, which took into account the statutory scheme and relevant notifications that were overlooked in the original Canon India judgment.

                            Final Determinations on Each Issue

                            The final determination is that the show cause notice dated 1st May 2019, issued by the DRI, is valid and should be adjudicated by the appropriate authority. The petitioner is afforded an opportunity to file a reply and be heard before a decision is made on the notice.


                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found