Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Lindt Exports Versus Union of India & Others

2016 (10) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Maintainability - jurisdiction of SCN issued by the Additional Director General, Department of Revenue Intelligence under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Resident of USA - several rounds of litigation - is the petition maintainable where the Petitioner is trying to initiate another round of litigation for the same relief after having been unsuccessful in the several rounds of litigation in which interestingly he never raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the officer who issued the S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1829 of 2016 - Dated:- 2-6-2016 - S. MURALIDHAR AND VIBHU BAKHRU JJ. Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naveen Malhotra, Ms. Anandita Sharma and Ms. Shefali Jain, Advocates for the Petitioners. Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate Mr. Satish Kumar, Senior Standing counsel, Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate for the Respondents. ORDER 1. The challenge in this petition by Lindt Exports through its Sole Proprietor Mr. Rajiv Verma, who in the affidavit in support of the petition says that he is presentl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e inter alia while interpreting the amendment to Section 28 (11) of the CA, the Court has held that prior to 8th April 2011, officers of the DRI, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence ( DGCEI ) etc. were not proper officers within the meaning of Section 2 (34) of the CA and, therefore, could not have issued or adjudicated SCNs under Section 28 of the CA. He accordingly submitted that the impugned SCN is wholly without jurisdiction and notwithstanding that it has been followed by adj .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ee Hills Coop. House Building Society (2006) 10 SCC 96 and Union of India v. Ramesh Gandhi (2012) 1 SCC 476 to urge that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is non est and void ab initio; that the defect of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and such a decree or order can be challenged at any stage even in a later or collateral proceedings. 4. Mr. Satish Aggarwala, learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the DRI has filed a written note of submissions. He opposed the g .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.e. nearly five years after the date of the order of the CESTAT, the Petitioner made the pre-deposit. The CESTAT allowed the application for restoration of the appeal by its order dated 3rd June 2011. This order was set aside by this Court on 27th September 2011 in an appeal filed by the Customs Department. When the Petitioner again approached this Court with a miscellaneous application this Court passed an order dated 3rd February 2012 requiring the Petitioner to deposit the said sum of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

titioner in this Court for modification of the order dated 3rd February 2012. This application was dismissed by the High Court on 22nd February 2013. This order was again challenged by the Petitioner in the Supreme Court by SLP (C) No. 1110-1111/2013 which was dismissed on 6th September 2013. 7. The Petitioner did not stop there. He again filed an application before this Court in 2016 for recalling the order dated 22nd February 2013 stating that he was now ready to pay the interest of ₹ 1, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

titioner to challenge the impugned SCN on fresh grounds. 9. The above submissions have been considered. The judgment of this Court in Mangali Impex Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) which interpreted Section 28(11) of the CA as amended was intended to apply to all pending cases and the cases that would arise thereafter. The Court noted that the administrative chaos spoken of by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Sayed Ali (2011) 3 SCC 537 in permitting any and every customs officer to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version