/** * The main template file * * This is the most generic template file in a WordPress theme * and one of the two required files for a theme (the other being style.css). * It is used to display a page when nothing more specific matches a query. * E.g., it puts together the home page when no home.php file exists. * * @link https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/basics/template-hierarchy/ * * @package WordPress * @subpackage Tally * @since 1.0.0 */ ?>
In M/s. Aktel by Proprietorship Anand Kumar and Ors v. Union of India and Ors. [WPO No. 822 of 2021] the writ petition in the current matter has been filed by M/s. Aktel by Proprietorship Anand Kumar and Ors (“the Petitioners”) against Show Cause Notice dated April 13, 2020 (“SCN”) issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (“DRI”) under Section 124 read with Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground of lack of authority with the DRI to pass such SCN.
The Petitioners contend that the SCN issued by the DRI lacks the authority by relying on the case of M/s. Canon India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs [Civil Appeal No.1827 of 2018 dated March 09, 2021] wherein it was held that DRI has no authority to issue any SCN under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 which provides for the powers of “Proper Officer” to issue notice for payment of duties, interest etc. in case of erroneous refund or short levy of interest on duty under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.
In the case of M/S Canon India Private Limited (supra) the SCNs issued by the DRI were struck down for denying Basic Customs Duty (“BCD”) exemption on import of “Digital Still Image Video” cameras. By interpreting Section 28(4) the Customs Act, 1962, it was held that only a “Proper Officer” under the section can issue such a notice, thereby interpreting that the section provides the power only to the officer or his successor, who had originally been provided with the task of Assessment.
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court noted that there appears to be a prima facie case by following the judgment of M/s. Canon India Private Limited (supra) wherein it was held DRI has no authority to issue such SCN and that such notice is non-est in law. Therefore, the stayed the SCN.
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s BBM Impex Pvt. Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) [Customs Early Hearing Application No.50414 of 2022 with Customs Appeal No. 51662 of
Read More
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Prem Kumar Ojha v. Commissioner of Customs-Jaipur I [Customs Miscellaneous Application No. 50245 of 2022 dated July 04, 2022] held that, in view
Read More
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Shri Shyam Ingot & Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise [Excise Appeal No. 52550 of 2019-SM dated August 08, 2022] held
Read More
The CESTAT, Chennai in the matter of M/s. SK Enterprises v The Commissioner of Customs [CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 40017 of 2022 dated June 24, 2022] set aside and held that the revaluation of the goods
Read More
The Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sandoz Private Limited v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 3358 of 2020 dated January 4, 2020] upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court that Export
Read More