Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The High Court held that u/ss 28AA(1) and 28(10) of the Customs Act, there is no requirement for a demand for interest to be made in the original assessment order. Interest liability arises automatically if the duty demand raised u/s 28 is not paid within the specified time. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that interest cannot be demanded when there is no mention of it in the assessment order. The respondents raised the interest demand within three months of the duty demand, which was not paid, and therefore the demand for interest was valid and not time-barred. The petitioner's factory was rightly not released due to the pending interest liability.
The High Court held that u/ss 28AA(1) and 28(10) of the Customs Act, there is no requirement for a demand for interest to be made in the original assessment order. Interest liability arises automatically if the duty demand raised u/s 28 is not paid within the specified time. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that interest cannot be demanded when there is no mention of it in the assessment order. The respondents raised the interest demand within three months of the duty demand, which was not paid, and therefore the demand for interest was valid and not time-barred. The petitioner's factory was rightly not released due to the pending interest liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
