GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 227 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2016 (5) TMI 227 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - 2016 (337) E.L.T. 228 (Guj.) - Stay 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng 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 wo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

NO. 12438 of 2015 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16047 of 2015 - Dated:- 27-4-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.Y. KOGJE, JJ. FOR THE PETITONER : MR ASIT B JOSHI, ADVOCATE, FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR RJ OZA, ADVOCATE ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. These petitions arise in common background. We may notice facts as stated in Special Civil Application No. 12438 of 2015. The petitioner has challenged an order-in-original dated 30.04.2015 passed by the adjudicating authori .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on the petitioner under Section 112 (A) of the Customs Act 1962. 2. This order, the petitioner has challenged in this petition almost exclusively on the ground that the Commissioner ought to have stayed the adjudication proceedings since the issue was pending before various Tribunals at different stages. The petitioner, during the course of hearing of the show-cause notice by the Commissioner, had filed written submissions dated 10.04.2015, in which, it was contended as under: 8. It is submitte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ical issues were pending before the various Tribunals across the country, the Commissioner should have differed decision on the show cause notice in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Though such a request was made before the Commissioner, he proceeded to pass the order of adjudication without even adverting to the request of the petitioner. Counsel submitted that the department's own internal instructions provide for keeping the hearing of the appeals in abeyance when the issue is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at these issues have been referred to the Larger Bench by the Madras Tribunal as also by the Ahmedabad Tribunal. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Oza for the department opposed the petition contending that in absence of any stay against further proceedings, the Commissioner was within his right to complete the adjudication. The petitioner has right of appeal before the Tribunal. The petitions may, therefore, be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having peruse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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. These issues have been discussed by the Supreme Court in case of Union of India and anr vs. Guwahati Carbon Limited reported .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Gujarat-II vs. Surendra Gulabchand Modi, the question of partition of the assessee himself was pending before the Supreme Court. In the opinion of the High Court the decision on the validity of the partition would have a direct bearing on the tax appeal which was pending before the Income Tax Tribunal. It was, in this background, the Court opined that the Tribunal should have awaited the outcome of the decision by the Supreme Court. 7. Accepting the petitioner's contention, that all proceedi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version