Petition challenging customs notice dismissed for being time-barred; seek remedy in Supreme Court

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging a show cause notice for customs duty, interest, penalty, and confiscation issued beyond the statutory limitation period. The Court held that the petitioner should seek remedy before the Supreme Court if aggrieved by its directions, not the High Court, ultimately finding the petition lacking merit and dismissing it summarily.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to show cause notice dated 4th May 2009 for customs duty, interest, penalty, and confiscation.
2. Time limitation under section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Validity of impugned show cause notice issued beyond the statutory limitation period.
4. Compliance with Supreme Court directions regarding the show cause notice.
5. Allegation of the order of the Supreme Court being per incuriam.
6. Jurisdiction to challenge Supreme Court orders.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged a show cause notice dated 4th May 2009 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-II, demanding customs duty, interest, penalty, and confiscation of imported capital goods under the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice pertained to the period from October 1996 to January 1998, making it time-barred under section 28(1) of the Act, which specifies a limitation period for issuing such notices.

3. The petitioner argued that the impugned show cause notice, issued beyond the statutory limitation period, was barred by limitation as the Act does not provide any authority to condone such delays, making the notice unsustainable.

4. The Supreme Court directed the Commissioner to issue the show cause notice, instructing the parties to maintain status quo until the matter's resolution within three months, which the Commissioner failed to comply with.

5. The petitioner alleged that the Supreme Court's order, which disregarded the provisions of the Customs Act and the Central Excise Act, was per incuriam, citing precedents to support the contention.

6. The Court held that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the Supreme Court's directions, the appropriate remedy lay before the Supreme Court itself, not the High Court, thereby dismissing the petition summarily for lacking merit.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment comprehensively, outlining the arguments presented by the petitioner, the compliance with Supreme Court directions, and the Court's final decision based on the legal principles and precedents cited.

---