Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
The HC held that an earlier unsuccessful writ challenge to a show-cause notice did not bar the appellant from contesting the seizure of jewellery in later confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court found that the seizure challenge had not been examined on its own merits, and that refusing to hear it would deprive the appellant of a meaningful defence. It therefore permitted the appellant to question the validity of the seizure and the proposed confiscation in the pending proceedings, and directed that reasonable time be granted if needed for effective participation. The Court did not decide the legality of the seizure on merits.
The HC held that an earlier unsuccessful writ challenge to a show-cause notice did not bar the appellant from contesting the seizure of jewellery in later confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court found that the seizure challenge had not been examined on its own merits, and that refusing to hear it would deprive the appellant of a meaningful defence. It therefore permitted the appellant to question the validity of the seizure and the proposed confiscation in the pending proceedings, and directed that reasonable time be granted if needed for effective participation. The Court did not decide the legality of the seizure on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
