Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Suriya Garments Versus The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, The Zonal Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Group-7)

2017 (10) TMI 576 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Maintainability of petition - Time limitation for filing appeal petition - The petitioner's contention is that limitation should be calculated only from the date, on which, the petitioner received copies of the adjudication orders from the office of the first respondent i.e. 28.8.2015 and if that date is reckoned, the petitioner's appeal petitions filed on 28.9.2015 are well within the period of limitation - Held that: - the petitioner has submitted the applications for redemption along with 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

itioner has fulfilled their obligations - petition maintained. - Writ Petition No. 25139 and 25140 of 2017 & W.M.P. Nos. 26573 to 26576 of 2017 - Dated:- 22-9-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Murugappan For the Respondents : Mr. B. Rabu Manohar, SPC Mr.S.Rajasekar. SPC ORDER Heard Mr.S.Murugappan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, learned Senior Panel counsel accepting notice for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned Senior Panel counsel acce .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re filed beyond the period of limitation (condonable period). 3. The Orders in Original were passed on 16.9.2008. The petitioner's case is that on account of the shifting of the Office premises, they had no notice of penalty proceedings, as a result of which, the Original Authority namely the first respondent confirmed the proposals in this notices and levied penalty for non fulfillment of export obligations. 4. Later, when the petitioner came to know about it, they submitted two application .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the bank realization certificates. These applications are pending before the first respondent and no orders have been passed so far. It appears that, the filing of the applications for redemption along with the bank realization certificates was not brought to the notice of the second respondent. Consequently, the second respondent took into consideration the date of the Orders in Original and dismissed the appeal petitions as being time barred. 6. The petitioner's contention is that limita .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version