9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree, Adv. Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR Mr. Kunwar Aditya Singh, Adv. ORDER Civil Appeal No.6021/2009 arise out of the final judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 9.12.2003 in a Reference Application under Customs Act no. 2 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 60726073 of 2009 arise out of judgment dated 21.2.2007 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad in Customs Appeals Nos. 680 and 681 of 2003. It is not necessary to give the full factual details of the Civil Appeals. To indicate the background of these appeals, we may state the most basic facts, of Civil Appeal No.6021 of 2009, relevant for this order. A show cause notice under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act was issued to the respondent Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under 129B passed before the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment), by application in the prescribed form, accompanied, where the application is made by the other party, by a fee of two hundred rupees, apply to the High Court to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising from such order of the Tribunal. (2) The Commissioner of Customs or the other party applying to the High Court under subsection (1) shall clearly state the question of law which he seeks to be re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n without calling for a statement of the Tribunal, therefore, the proceedings are unsustainable in law. Confronted with the question as to what is the provision of law which mandates the High Court to necessarily call upon the Tribunal to make a statement, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel placed an order of this Court in Commissioner Of Customs, Bangalore v. Central Manufacturing Tech. Institute reported in 2002 (146) ELT 27. It is a short order running into 10 lines. Therefore, we extract the entire order. It reads as under: "1. Leave granted. The High Court rejected an application for reference of the question of law arising from the order of CEGAT and the High Court agreed with the view taken by the Tribunal and disposed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when any interest payable has not been paid, part paid or erroneously refunded, the proper officer may,- (a) in the case of any import made by any individual for his personal use or by Government or by any educational, research or charitable institution or hospital, within one year; (b) in any other case, within six months, from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty or interest which has not been levied or charged or which has been so short-levied or part paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice: Provided that where any duty has not been levied or has been short-levied or the interest has not been c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
