https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797138 Limitation under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act is jurisdictional: adjudication after expiry of the applicable period is invalid. The phrase "where it is possible to do so" required completion within one year unless impracticable and did not permit proceedings to remain pending indefinitely; adjudication nearly fourteen years after the notice, unsupported by material for Call Book retention, was unreasonable and arbitrary. The 2018 amendment could not revive a proceeding already time-barred under the earlier law; even if applied from commencement, the adjudication exceeded the amended timeline. The delayed customs adjudication was therefore unsustainable and contrary to Article 14. en-us Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Aug 2026 08:35:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797138 Limitation under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act is jurisdictional: adjudication after expiry of the applicable period is invalid. The phrase "where it is possible to do so" required completion within one year unless impracticable and did not permit proceedings to remain pending indefinitely; adjudication nearly fourteen years after the notice, unsupported by material for Call Book retention, was unreasonable and arbitrary. The 2018 amendment could not revive a proceeding already time-barred under the earlier law; even if applied from commencement, the adjudication exceeded the amended timeline. The delayed customs adjudication was therefore unsustainable and contrary to Article 14. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797138