Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (1) TMI 369

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... months. We think when the appellant could wait for a period of three months there is no difficulty for it to wait for another one month and so - findings of the learned Tribunal at the interlocutory stage will not be binding on the hearing of the appeal, because the approach of the final hearing of the appeal is completely different from that in case of an interlocutory application. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to decide the matter as early as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order - Decided partly in favour of assesssee. - C.E.A. No. 52 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 3-12-2013 - CJ Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta And Sanjay Kumar,JJ. JUDGMENT (Per the Hon ble the Chief Justice Sri K .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... TAT ought to have granted release of the imported goods for further refining? Ordinarily, in a case of this nature, the imported goods ought to be released on final hearing of the appeal itself. But, some times facts and circumstances demands, having regard to the nature of the goods, order of release can be made at the interlocutory stage on appropriate terms and conditons, pending hearing of the appeal. Here the learned Tribunal did not adopt the second course of action. The appellant, therefore, has come up before us. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has not considered the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Gokul Refoils Solvents Pvt., Ltd., vs. Union of India[2012 (278) ELT 433 (Cal.)] and th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... till in force. We set out the aforesaid Section: 130. Appeal to High Court: 1. An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order 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), if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. 2. Commissioner of Customs or the other party aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such appeal under this sub-section shall be (a) filed within one hundred and eighty days from the date on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in view of the amended regulations to allow clearance and put condition what has been suggested by the Central Food Laboratory since revenue says that they have no machinery to control over the appellant to carry out processing in absence of post-importation obligation as suggested by Central Food Laboratory. We have gone through both the judgments cited by the appellant. Because of the difficulty expressed by the revenue as above, we are unable to differ with the opinion expressed by Tribunal in the precedent decision of this Bench as cited above. Accordingly, the stay application is rejected. It appears that the decisions of the Gujarat and the Calcutta High Courts referred to above have not been dealt with in so many words as to why .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment on 26.09.2013. Against the decision of the learned Tribunal, the appellant, at the first instance, approached the writ jurisdiction of this Court on 19.11.2013. When the writ Court dismissed the said proceedings holding that appeal lies, the present appeal has been preferred. Be that as it may, the appellant approached the Tribunal in September 2013 waiting for three months. We think when the appellant could wait for a period of three months there is no difficulty for it to wait for another one month and so. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. However, we make it clear that the findings of the learned Tribunal at the interlocut .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates