TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Section 155 safeguards: show cause notices cannot serve as notice under s155(2); remand only to identify trigger and compute limitation</h1> Statutory safeguards in customs adjudication require that a show cause notice does not suffice as the notice mandated for resumption under section 155(2); ... Scope and applicability of statutory safeguards in section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Validity of a show cause notice u/s 124 being treated as notice u/s 155(2) - Duty of subordinate adjudicating authorities to follow appellate rulings and the principle of judicial discipline - Remand limited to identification of the triggering event and computation of limitation u/s 155(2) - Remedies for executive review u/s 129D - Appellate and administrative supervisory provisions - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that the determination by the Tribunal had not been challenged in appeal either on point of law before the jurisdictional High Court or as arising from a dispute involving, among other things, value before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Consequently, that had attained finality on the legality of show cause notice not sufficing as notice for purposes of section 155(2) of Customs Act, 1962 and on resumption solely to ascertain compliance by way of determining the trigger and the time-line within which notice under section 155(2) should have been issued. Failure to comply with the law so determined, and ascertainment so directed, taints de novo proceedings. Doubtlessly, that has to be tested and determined in appeal. As it should it be. It is neither open to questioning as tenable nor to be reviewed by revival of the discarded proposition in fresh proceedings. That is not only anathema to judicial decorum but also evincing of contempt for law and its institutions. It is also contempt for superior executive authority who have, whether the original authority is pleased or displeased thereby, accepted the law as set out inspite of opportunity available for mounting challenge under the empowerment in section 129D of Customs Act, 1962. For an adjudicating authority, who voluntarily subordinated himself to appellate jurisdiction by adjudicating on a single aspect of the proceedings, to blind himself to the law so settled and for that to pass unhindered through judicial process is to tolerate incipient chaos in the governance of customs law. For an adjudicating authority to, first, delegate a proposition upward for judicial determination and then to pretend that such determination had not occurred is insinuation that rule of law does not attend upon statutory creations. For an adjudicating authority, probably from inability to comprehend the judicial determination, to erase such determination is improper conduct in the face of possible recourse to express resolution from that same appellate authority, through section 129B (2) of Customs Act, 1962, is to arrogate overwhelming supremacy in administering a law. For an adjudicating authority to ignore the voluntary acceptance of jurisdiction of the ruling of the Tribunal, by recourse to section 129A(4) of Customs Act, 1962 on the part of his executive superiors, is to imperil administrative discipline. Applications are disposed off accordingly. Issues: Whether the resumed de novo adjudication breached and was tainted by disregard of the Tribunal's earlier final ruling that a show cause notice under section 124 did not constitute the notice required by section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the jurisdictional Commissioner must review the de novo adjudication under section 129D in light of that final appellate determination.Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed the statutory framework of section 155 and distinguished the protections and procedural preconditions in sub-sections (1) and (2), holding that the safeguard in section 155(2) (prior notice and time-limits) applies and that the show cause notice under section 124 did not satisfy the notice requirement of section 155(2). The Tribunal confined the resumed proceedings to identification of the factual 'trigger' for limitation and compliance with the preliminary requirements specified in section 155(2), and it did not permit re-agitation of the discarded legal proposition. The Tribunal emphasised the binding effect of its earlier ruling on subordinate adjudicating authorities and the principle that appellate determinations attain finality where not challenged, requiring adherence by the original authority. Given the resumed adjudication proceeded without giving effect to that final appellate determination, the Tribunal concluded that the de novo proceedings were tainted and that administrative review under section 129D is the appropriate remedy to test legality and propriety of the impugned de novo order.Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the resumed adjudication was tainted by non-compliance with its earlier final ruling that a show cause notice under section 124 is not notice under section 155(2), and directed that the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs must take up the de novo adjudication for review under section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
