Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2016 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 227 - HC - CustomsStay petition - Classification of goods - Principal Commissioner of Customs, classified the goods imported as bituminous Coal under different heading/sub-heading 2701-1200 of the schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Petitioner submitted that Commissioner ought to have stayed the adjudication proceedings since the issue was pending before various Tribunals at different stages - Held that:- it is noticed that against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, statutory appeal lies before the Tribunal. In view of the availability of such alternative statutory remedy, particularly, in the field of the taxation, the Court would always be slow in entertaining the writ petition. Additionally, we must remember that the question in the petition concerns classification of the goods and therefore, even once the Tribunal decides the appeal, be it of the assessee or the department, further appeal would lie to the Supreme Court and not to the High Court. This would be an additional ground why the Court would not entertain the writ petition against the order of the adjudicating authority. The contention, that in view of pendency of the proceedings before various Tribunals, the Commissioner ought not to have proceeded with the finalization of the show-cause notice proceedings, is not one of universal validity. Under what circumstances, a certain proceeding should be kept in abeyance awaiting finalization of a similar issue, must depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Accepting the petitioner's contention, that all proceedings of like nature must be kept pending till the issues are clarified finally, would lead to absurd consequences. As noted, the issues are referred to the Larger Benches of the Tribunal. In fact, in one such case, where the Madras Tribunal made a reference, the aggrieved party has approached the High Court of Madras, in which, the reference order is stayed pending further hearing of the petition as can be seen from the order supplied by the counsel for the petitioner in case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Chettinad Cement Corp. Ltd. reported in [2015 (10) TMI 1530 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], even after the Larger Bench were to dispose of the references, there is always possibility of further legal proceedings being taken out by the aggrieved party. Therefore, to suggest that till similar issues achieve finality, any further adjudication can not take place would not be quite correct. Further, every question of classification in addition to involving question of law, would also depend on facts of each case. Therefore, petitioner is relegated to the appellate remedy. In view of the fact that the petitioners have been pursuing their case before the High Court, if they file the appeals before the Tribunal latest by 15.05.2016, the same would be accepted without raising objection on limitation. - Decided against the petitioner
|