Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2016 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 472 - MADRAS HIGH COURTMaintainability of writ petition - alternative appellate remedy - Re-classifcation of Micom Px40 range of products (IEDs) as “Automatic Regulating or Controlling Instruments and Apparatus” - exemption of customs duty under Notification No.25/99-Cus. - Held that:- Prima facie, the impugned order is appealable before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. In view of the settled legal position that the availability of alternative remedy would be a clear bar for approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court could see that only for the purpose of avoiding the pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty demanded, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the ground that the issues are covered. But still the issues as to whether the respondent can demand differential customs duty under the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 and whether the respondent has got jurisdiction to demand differential customs duty beyond one year from the date of show cause notice are to be decided only by the appellate authority, but not by this Court. The second contention raised by the petitioner that the impugned order is a non-speaking order is also not acceptable. In any event, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition, as the petitioner has to challenge the impugned order only before the appellate Commissioner. Since the writ petition is filed before this Court within sixty days, the petitioner is permitted to approach the appellate authority within sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - Decided against the appellant.
|