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

2016 (6) TMI 751

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... emedy by filing an appeal on limited grounds, the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by filing a petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the appellant company was wholly misconceived and the same is not maintainable. Therefore, the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition as not maintainable in the light of the appeal remedy under Section 129-A of the Act - Decided against the petitioner. - Writ Appeal No. 425 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 6-6-2016 - S. Manikumar And D. Krishnakumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Joseph Prabhakar For the Respondents : Mr. A. P. Srivinvas, Standing Counsel for Customs JUDGMENT ( Judgme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, thereby exempts following the goods of the description specified in column (3) of the Table below and falling within the heading, sub-heading or tariff item of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) as are specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, when imported into India, from the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon under the said First Schedule, namely:- S. No Heading, Sub-heading or Tariff item Description of goods (1) (2) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uash the order in Appeal C-Cus No.468-547/2013 dated 28.3.2013 in File Nos.C3/64/0/2013-Sea, C3/752-761, 789/802, 907-914, 1028-1034, 1070-1073, 1204-1206, 1210 1219, 1236/0/2012 SEA, C310-16, 132-135, 163-165, 202-209/0/2012-Sea passed by the first respondent/Commissioner of Customs (Appeal), Chennai. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant had submitted before the learned Judge in the Writ Petition that as per the Notification No.25/2005 Cus, exemption is available for import of Static Converters (UPS) for automatic data processing machines and units thereof, and telecommunication apparatus and the equipment imported by the appellant is indeed a UPS System, which is meant for automatic data processing machines. Though there is no disp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... emedy available before the appellate authority under Section 129-A of the Act. Further, he would submit that these are the disputed facts, which cannot be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 11. The appellant is engaged in the business of sale and installation of imported Uninterrupted Power Supply Systems (UPS), which falls under Chapter Heading 85 04 40 90 attracting 7.5% Basic Duty, 10% CVD and 4% SAD apart from Cess. Subsequently, when the appellant claimed exemption of Duty, it was rejected by the second respondent by Order in Original No.18260/2012 dated 3.2.2102 rejecting the claim of exemptio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder. The respondent department disputed the fact for granting of exemption to the appellant. In support of his contention, the appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Camlin Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai reported in 2008 (230) E.L.T.193 (S.C.) wherein it was held that end use verification of products is necessary for availing the benefit of concession of duty and also relied on the decision rendered in Canon India Pvt.Ltd., vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2014 (305) E.L.T. 255 (Mad.) and contended that in the light of the aforesaid decisions, the Writ Petition is maintainable. 13. The point for consideration in the Writ Appeal is whether the Writ Petition is maintainable under Art .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inath sons, 1992 (Suppl) 2 SCC 312 and in Karnataka Chemical Industries v. Union of India, 1999 (113) E.L.T. 17(SC)-2000 (10) SCC 13, the Supreme Court held that where there is a hierarchy of appeals provided by the statute the party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. 18. In Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, AIR 1999 SC 2859 and Punjab National Bank v. D.C.Krishna, 2001 (6) SCC 569, the Supreme Court held that if the statute provides for remedy of revision or appeal, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked. 19. In Union of India v. T.R.Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882, the Supreme Court held that it is well settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be re .....

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