https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381832 A writ petition challenging a customs show-cause notice and corrigendum on limitation grounds was not entertained, as the drawback rules did not contain an express limitation period and Section 28 of the Customs Act could be used only as a broad analogy. The Court held that limitation in such matters is fact-specific and cannot be determined in the abstract at the notice stage. It reiterated that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not used to quash a show-cause notice unless there is lack of jurisdiction, settled law is being reopened, mala fides, or pre-determination, none of which was shown. The notice and corrigendum were therefore left intact, while the respondent was directed to decide the limitation objection first and proceed with adjudication. en-us Fri, 14 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Jun 2019 15:40:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381832 A writ petition challenging a customs show-cause notice and corrigendum on limitation grounds was not entertained, as the drawback rules did not contain an express limitation period and Section 28 of the Customs Act could be used only as a broad analogy. The Court held that limitation in such matters is fact-specific and cannot be determined in the abstract at the notice stage. It reiterated that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not used to quash a show-cause notice unless there is lack of jurisdiction, settled law is being reopened, mala fides, or pre-determination, none of which was shown. The notice and corrigendum were therefore left intact, while the respondent was directed to decide the limitation objection first and proceed with adjudication. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 14 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381832