AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (7) TMI 145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....book issued to them. Their obligations were fixed as Rs. 83,20,423/-, that was fulfilled, before the imports in this case were effected. This export obligation fulfilment stand endorsed in Part II of pass book, Duty free raw materials viz. Dyes, Chemicals, Adhesive tapes, polypropylene, PVC, Hook and Loop fasteners, elasting webbing, Polyester, shirt buttons etc. were imported and cleared and certain consignments in this case as listed. Therein the Annexure VI to show cause notice list goods lying in Bombay Dock under clearance were for which Bill of Entries were filed. Some of the goods, earlier cleared lying at Parekh Warehouse, Mumbai and are mentioned in Annexure V to the show cause notice. A list of goods cleared is at Annexure I. 2. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not invoke proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. The demand, therefore, in respect of the goods mentioned in Annexure-I to the notice is barred by limitation. (3) Alternatively, assuming the notice has been issued under Section 28, as the same has been issued for a period of more than 6 months, the same is without jurisdiction since at the relevant time, notice beyond 6 months could only be issued by the Collector and not the Assistant Collector. See : (i) Collector v. ONGC [1998 (103) E.L.T. 3] (ii) Collector v. Alcobax [2003 (4) SCC 630]." and since from the Annexure to the show cause notice issued in this case, it is apparent that the said show cause notice is concerned with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and therefore could not be upheld. It was also held as under :- "The theory of "committee of courts" postulates that when there two or more courts having parallel jurisdiction over the same matter, as in the present case, i.e. the Commissioner of Customs in whose jurisdiction, the Bills of Entry were filed, assessed & cleared and the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Mumbai who derived his concurrent parallel jurisdiction by virtue of an appointment vide Notification No. 250/83 to exercise the powers of a Customs Officer then in such case the jurisdiction of the second and any other authority are deemed to be ousted, when any one of the authorities having a concurrent parallel jurisdiction has taken cognizance of a particular issue. In thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the aforesaid officer, one Excise & Taxation Officer was designated as Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority (Anti Evasion Squad) for entire State of Haryana, including Faridabad. This Anti Evasion Squad Officer, issued notice to the petitioners to finalise the assessment against them. The jurisdiction of this Anti Evasion Squad Officer was challenged. The Punjab & Haryana High Court, while upholding the authority of the Notification granting concurrent parallel jurisdiction to Anti Evasion Squad to make assessments, recorded the following propositions of the law. - "1. Under the Act, the District Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority would have jurisdiction to ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be at rest. This could not be the intention of the legislature or the Government or even the Department of Revenue itself for that matter." and in that case did not uphold the jurisdiction of Collector of Customs, Calcutta to charge duty on goods assessed and cleared through Paradeep Port, when goods were seized in Calcutta Collector's jurisdiction after clearance from Paradeep Port. No submission or case law was made or relied before us, by the Departmental Representative. Bound by the law as laid down by the Supreme Court and following these binding decisions, it has to be concluded that the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) cannot derive authority to take over the goods covered by Bills of Entry and to make assessment thereon when they w....