Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (1) TMI 1222 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2017 (1) TMI 1222 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - TMI - Condonation of delay of 332 days - Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1944 - Held that: - it appears that there was a bona fide delay on the part of the appellant in preferring the appeal in time before the respondent. Therefore, while exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court ought to have adopted a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and the case, the delay is of few .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eal or application within the time prescribed for it - delay condoned - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - TAX APPEAL No. 753 of 2016 - Dated:- 12-1-2017 - MR. M.R. SHAH AND MR. N. KARIA, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. DEVAN PARIKH, Sr Advocate with Mr RAJ K VYAS, Advocate For The Opponent : Mr. DHAVAL D VYAS, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA) 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order No. A/10335/2016 dated 26th April 2016 passed by the Customs .....

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 hear the said Appeal of the appellant on merits, in the interest of justice. 2. Heard Shri Devan Parikh, learned senior advocate appearing with learned advocate Mr. Raj K Vyas, learned advocate on behalf of the appellant and Shri Dhaval D. Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue. 3. Shri Devan Parikh, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently urged that the learned Tribunal has ex facie erred in not appreciating the law applicable to the present .....

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 have been decided on merits rather than dismissing the application on technicalities. Hence, it was requested by him to allow this Tax Appeal by quashing and setting aside the impugned Order and thereby directing the Tribunal to hear the said Appeal on merits. 4. On the otherside, Shri Dhaval D Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue strongly opposed the submissions made for and on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the appellant is negligent in preferring the Appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly aware of the fact that the reply to the show cause notice and the appeal before the learned Commissioner [Appeals] against the adjudication order had been filed through them only and the same cannot be independently filed by M/s. Ganpati Energy Private Limited. That the appellant cannot be benefited by its own negligence, therefore, it was requested by Shri Dhaval Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent to dismiss the present Appeal. 5. Having considered the facts of 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

am coal purchased on high seas sale basis was supplied on the basis of final assessment of Bill of Entry No. 698370 dated 31st May 2012/2nd April 2012, for which M/s. Ganpati Energy Private Limited had raised an Invoice No. HSS005 dated 23rd May 2012 for ₹ 1,07,66,000/= and the appellant had made payment for the said bill to the said Agency. The question was whether the goods imported in the form of Steam Coal from Indonesia is steam coal or bituminous coal was pending before the Larger Be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ded before the authority on 24th April 2014. After hearing, the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Surat passed an Order-in-Original dated 27th May 2014 confirming the demand of difference in customs duty alongwith interest and penalty. That, thereafter the appellant filed an Appeal before the Commissioner of Customs [Appeals], Ahmedabad which came to be dismissed by an order dated 2nd December 2012. Thereafter, the appellant preferred appeal before the respondent praying to condone the delay of 332 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oner Customs, Surat dated 27th May 2014 for onward action. The order dated 2nd December 2012 passed by the Commissioner [Appeals] in Order-in- Appeal No. AHD-000-APP-352-14-15 was also communicated to the appellant on 9th December 2014 and the same alongwith the other documents were forwarded to the representative Shri Natvar Darak of M/s. Ganpati Energy Private Limited with a request to do the needful in the matter, as the appellant had purchased the goods at the agreed price. As no action was .....

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