Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Customs (Import I) Versus Anik Industries Limited

2016 (5) TMI 1194 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Validity of order passed by writ court - Clearance of goods covered by the commercial invoice and consignments of Alloy Steel Deformed Bars also forthwith lying in the port of Chennai - Held that:- the proposition, which has been proposed by the writ petitioner that till the contempt is purged the appeal against the writ petition cannot be heard has no merit and, therefore, we reject the said preliminary objection and issue notice to the respondents on merit as well as on I.A.No.5511/2015, I.A.N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

acing contempt by the writ court. - Interim relief and stay granted - W.A. No. 637/2015, W.A. No. 639/2015, W.A. No. 496/2015 - Dated:- 6-1-2016 - P. K. Jaiswal And J. K. Jain, JJ. For the Petitioner : Prasana Prasad, Ajay Bagadiya For the Respondent : G. L. Rawal, V. K. Jain ORDER They are heard. 2. By these intra court appeals, the Departments are challenging the order dated 30.9.2015 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.9169/2014 (Ankit Industries Ltd V/s. Union of India & Ors.) whereby 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

ed 07.11.2014 bearing No.450/176/2014-Cus-IV and the fact that agreement is dated 24.06.2014 regarding the petitioner's goods have been received at the port in consequence of commercial invoice dated 04th September 2014, I find that the Circular cannot be applied retrospectively to the consignment of the petitioner and hence in this light also the petition needs to be partly allowed. 14. Consequently the petition is partly allowed and it is directed that the respondent No.3 shall allow clear .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to take action in accordance with the provisions of law and that the petitioner shall co-operate fully with the respondent in the investigation of the same. 3. At the outset, Shri G.L. Rawal, learned Senior counsel with Shri V.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 (Ankit Industries Ltd.) raised a preliminary objection on the question of arguments on admission on the ground that the goods were covered by commercial invoices dated 4.9.2014 and consignments of alloy steel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he aforesaid he has drawn our attention to Halsbury's Laws of England to the decision of Hadkinson V/s. Hadkinson reported as [1952] 2 All ELR 567, S.E.B.I V/s. Sahara India Real Estate Ltd, reported as 2014 (3) Scale 300, Amrik Singh v/s. State (Delhi Admn.) reported as 1971 SCC (Cri.) 423, Rukmani Rani v/s. Bhimdev Chopra reported as 1980, Rajdhani Law Reporter, (Notes) 48-50, Kashmere Gate Chartitable Trust V/s. M.G. Shahni reported as Rajdhani Law Reporter, 580, Gogo Rani v/s. Rajendra S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dia & Anr. reported as 1981 (Suppl.) SCC 87. He further submits that the preliminary objection be allowed and till the order passed by the writ court is complied with, the hearing of these three appeals be deferred. 5. In reply to the preliminary objection, learned counsel for the Department submits that M/s. Ankit Industries Ltd., writ petition had no territorial jurisdiction to file the writ petition at Indore Bench of M.P. High Court since no cause of action arises to file the writ petiti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

shall operate from the date of import. To support the aforesaid, he has drawn our attention to para 41 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v/s. N.R. Parmar, reported as (2012) 13 SCC 340, wherein the Apex Court observed that the Office Memo dated 3.3.2008 is a nature of a Clarification . Essentially, a clarification does not introduce anything new, to the already existing position. A clarification, only explains the true purport of an existing instrument. As such, a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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