9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1662 - HC - CustomsImported of second hand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines - Single member bench of HC allowed the writ petition 2012 (4) TMI 68 - MADRAS HIGH COURT by directing the such goods may be directed to be released on payment of the appropriate customs duty and on the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed by law - Revenue contended that the judgement of Supreme Court was not correctly interpreted in the COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOM HOUSE VERSUS M/S. CITY OFFICE EQUIPMENT AND OTHERS 2013 (4) TMI 655 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - HELD THAT - The matter being covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Customs Tuticorin vs. City Office Equipment these appeals are liable to be dismissed in terms of the said judgment.
Issues involved:
Interpretation of previous judgments by the High Court and Supreme Court, reliance on Division Bench decisions, delay in filing Special Leave Petition, release of goods on payment of duty. Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Previous Judgments: The judgment addresses the issue of interpreting previous judgments by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The counsel for the Department argued that a Division Bench judgment had not correctly interpreted the judgments of the Supreme Court. The court noted that the matter in question was covered by a Division Bench judgment in Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin vs. City Office Equipment. The counsel for the Department sought to rely on another Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal Nos. 2101 to 2103 of 2012, which remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge. Despite the reliance on these judgments, the court found that the appeals were liable to be dismissed based on the precedent set by the Division Bench in Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin vs. City Office Equipment. 2. Delay in Special Leave Petition: Another issue highlighted in the judgment was the delay in filing a Special Leave Petition against the Division Bench judgment. The court noted that although a Special Leave Petition had been preferred, it had not yet been numbered, even after 2 years since the delivery of the judgment. This delay was pointed out as a significant factor, indicating the prolonged legal process and the need for timely action in such matters. 3. Release of Goods on Payment of Duty: The judgment also dealt with the issue of goods being released on payment of duty. The court mentioned that the appeals under consideration were related to a decision by the learned Single Judge, where goods had been released upon the payment of duty. Despite the specific circumstances of the case, the court concluded that due to the matter being covered by the Division Bench judgment, the appeals were to be dismissed accordingly. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal precedents and rulings in such cases. In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues related to the interpretation of previous judgments, delays in the legal process, and the release of goods on payment of duty. By referencing relevant Division Bench decisions and emphasizing the need for consistency in legal actions, the court arrived at a decision to dismiss the appeals based on the established precedent.
|
