TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1944 lies before the Supreme court. In favour of assessee - Special Civil Application No.1156 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 18-7-2012 - Akil Kureshi and Harsha Devani, JJ Appellant Rep by: 1, Mr R J Oza : 1, Respondents Rep by: Mr J C Patel, Nos.1-2. Mr B D Karia, : 1 - 2. Mr Hardik P Modh, : 1 - 2. Rule Served : 3. M/s Trivedi Gupta : 4, 6. Ms S M Ahuja : 5. JUDGEMENT Per: Akil Kureshi: 1. This petition is filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad calling in question the legality of the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (CEGAT for short) dated 2nd February 2001. By the said judgment, the CEGAT allowed the appeals of the respondent. The duty demands and penalti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... --- (a)...... (b) any order passed before the establishment of the National Tax Tribunal by the Appellate Tribunal relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment. From the above statutory provisions, it can be seen that any order passed by the Tribunal relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment is appealable before the Apex Court . Under section 130A of the Customs Act, on the other hand, appeal against a decision of the Appellate Tribunal would lie at the hand of the Department agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Special Import Licence issued in terms of Export and Import Policy from 1-4-1992 to 31st March, 1997 of Ministry of Commerce, Govt. of India. In this case there is no dispute about the issue of SIL's in accordance with the above policy. At the time of Import as per the clarification of DGFT under clause 4.15 of the policy, goods covered by SIL's produced afresh, and they were valid. So regarding duty element, the appellant M/s. H.Kumar Gems has complied the above condition and is eligible to concessional rate of duty. The contention of the said appellant is upheld. From the above, it can be seen that one of the several issues which the CEGAT decided by the impugned judgment pertained to the applicability or otherwise of a notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. 7. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. In this respect, we may refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Asstt. Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2010(253) E.L.T. 3 (SC), pointed out to us by the counsel for the respondents. In the said decision, the Apex Court emphasized that where statutory appeals are available, writ petition should normally not be entertained avoiding such alternative remedy. 8. Had the question been of an appeal being maintainable before the High Court in terms of section 130A of the Customs Act, at this point of time, after the petition was admitted long back, we would not have perhaps refused to entertain the petition on merits since bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may not be appropriate for the writ court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that since the assessee has a remedy in the form of a right of appeal under the statute, that remedy must be exhausted first, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, ought not to have been interfered with by the Division Bench of the High Court in the appeal filed by the respondent/assessee. 9. In a recent order dated 20th June 2012, passed in Special Civil Application No.13295 of 2004 and connected petitions, we had, taking note of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Guwahati Carbon Ltd. (supra), refused to entertain the writ petitions mak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
