Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (8) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (8) TMI 1166 - HC - Customs


Issues involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to an order passed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, confirming a demand, imposing a penalty, and confiscating goods, along with issues related to delay in adjudication and violation of principles of natural justice.

Challenge to Order under Customs Act:
The petitioner challenged an order confirming a demand, imposing a penalty, and confiscating goods under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The order was passed against the petitioner after a delay of more than 25 years from the date of the show cause notice issued in 1997. The petitioner argued that the delay hindered their ability to defend the case and requested relief due to the vague explanation provided by the respondents for the delay.

Respondents' Submission and Court's Analysis:
The respondents stated that the order against the co-noticees, including the petitioner, was quashed in a separate case, rendering the present petition moot. However, the court found the explanation for the 25-year delay due to departmental restructuring to be insufficient. The court cited a previous case to reject such a general explanation for the delay in adjudication. The court also noted that even if the petitioner missed hearings, the respondents failed to take steps to complete the adjudication process between 2000 and 2020, highlighting a lack of action on their part.

Legal Provisions and Conclusion:
The court referenced Section 28(2A) of the Customs Act, which mandates completion of adjudication proceedings within a specified timeframe. The court emphasized the need for timely adjudication and concluded that the delay in this case was unreasonable, leading to the quashing of the show cause notice and the impugned order. The court also highlighted a violation of natural justice principles due to the lack of evidence showing proper service of notices on the petitioner. Ultimately, the court made the rule absolute, quashing the impugned order and the notice, with no order as to costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates