TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been a ground for dismissing the appeals. In fact, this legal position could not be disputed on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. - Application disposed of - Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2209 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2016 - I. S. Ansari And Anjana Mishra, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Tanmoy Chakravarty, Adv. Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. S D Sanjay (Addl. SOC. GEN) Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. S.C., Customs JUDGMENT ( Per: Honourable Mr. Justice I. A. Ansari ) Aggrieved by the order, dated 23.11.2015, passed by respondent No.3, namely, Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Patna, in Appeal No.140/995/Pat/Cus/Appeal/2015, this writ petition has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE dated 1.3.2011 and pay duty at the rate of 2% CVD on goods imported through Nepal. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9440 of 2003: M/s. SRF Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai by order dated 26.3.2015. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has represented before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Raxaul on 22.5.2015 but the same has not yet been disposed of and the petitioner has been compelled to keep on paying CVD at the higher rate of 6 %, though under protest. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the filing of the said representation a fre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of filing of the representation. The order, dated 22.7.2015, aforementioned, later on, was modified, at the instance of the respondents, by order, dated 14.9.2015, passed in M.J.C. No. 2136 of 2015. The order, dated 14.9.2015, modifying the earlier order, dated 22.7.2015, reads as follows:- Heard learned counsels for the parties. This application has been filed for modification of the order dated 22.07.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No.10601 of 2015 by which this Court has directed the petitioner to file a representation before the Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Raxaul within a period of two weeks from the date of order. It has also been directed to the Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Raxaul, to consider and dispose of the represe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioners had filed, within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order, dated 14.9.2015. Respondent No.3, namely, Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Patna has, however, taking into account the fact that the Union of India has filed a petition, seeking review of the decision of the Supreme Court, in M/s. SRF Ltd. v-Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, passed in Civil Appeal No.9440 of 2003, dismissed the appeals by the impugned order, dated 23.11.2015, on the ground that since the review petition is pending and the matter is sub judice, it would be premature to decide the appeals without a final decision on the issues raised in the Supreme Court in M/s. SRF Ltd. v-Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, passed in Civi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
