TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 706
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... For the Petitioner Through: Mr. Naveen Malhotra and Mr. Ritvik Malhotra, Adv. For the Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, Ms. Nishu, Ms. Shivani, Mr. Nitin and Ms. Divya, Advs. Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC with Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Adv. for DRI. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... DRI Officials were not 'proper officers' for the purpose of initiating/conducting proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. However, the Canon-I decision has been reviewed in Review Petition (Civil) No. 400/2021 titled 'Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Canon India Private Limited', (hereinafter, 'Canon-II'). 5. In Canon-II, the following findings have been rendered by the Sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d under Section 28 of the Act, 1962 have been challenged before the High Courts directly by way of a writ petition, the respective High Court shall dispose of such writ petitions in accordance with the observations made in this judgment and restore such notices for adjudication by the proper officer under Section 28. b. Where the writ petitions have been disposed of by the respective High Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst them which are pending before this Court, they shall be disposed of in accordance with this decision and this Court shall grant eight weeks' time to the respective assessee to prefer appropriate appeals before the CESTAT. e. Where the orders of CESTAT have been challenged before this Court or the respective High Court on the ground of maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction of the pr....