Writ petitions challenging customs adjudication were held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory appeal under the Customs Act was available and no exceptional jurisdictional infirmity was shown. The Court held that non-communication of an extension of time under Section 28(9), by itself, does not invalidate the extension, since intimation is desirable but not a mandatory for validity. Objections that the corrigendum materially supplemented the show cause notice and that Section 28BB was breached were treated as issues suitable for consideration by the appellate authority. The petitioners were relegated to the statutory appeal, with the period spent in writ proceedings directed to be excluded for limitation purposes.
Writ petitions challenging customs adjudication were held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory appeal under the Customs Act was available and no exceptional jurisdictional infirmity was shown. The Court held that non-communication of an extension of time under Section 28(9), by itself, does not invalidate the extension, since intimation is desirable but not a mandatory for validity. Objections that the corrigendum materially supplemented the show cause notice and that Section 28BB was breached were treated as issues suitable for consideration by the appellate authority. The petitioners were relegated to the statutory appeal, with the period spent in writ proceedings directed to be excluded for limitation purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
