9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Prasanna Prasad - Advocate ORDER PER: JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA The petitioner has filed these petitions (W.Ps. Nos. 14776/2025, 14792/2025, 14777/2025, 14789/2025, 14790/2025 and 14779/2025) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 31.01.2025, in which the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Indore, rejected the application filed under Section 58 r/w Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. W.Ps Nos. 16067/2025 and 16204/2025 have also been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned notice for cancellation dated 24.04.2025 and 23.04.2025, respectively. 3. This order shall govern the disposal of the aforesaid Writ Petitions. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or other operations in the warehouse. Under sub-regulation 4.2, an application for operating under these regulations shall be made to the Principal Commissioner of Customs or the Commissioner of Customs as the case may be. 7. After due verification, the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may grant permission to operate under the provisions of these regulations. Under the aforesaid, the petitioner submitted an application to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Jabalpur Customs Division, Napier Town, Jabalpur on 28.03.2024 for grant of licence for private bonded warehouse and permission for manufacturing and other operations under Section 65 of the Customs Act for facility located at "Urtan, Sohangpur South Easte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4779/2025. 10. So far as the other two mines located at Chattarpur and Churcha are concerned, the petitioner had been granted a licence under Section 65 of the Customs Act, but now the notice for cancellation has been issued by the respondents on 24.04.2025 and 23.04.2025, respectively. Submission of the petitioner's senior counsel. 11. Shri Sujeet Ghosh, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is assailing the impugned order on the ground of fraught with perversity and patent illegality committed by the respondents on irrelevant factors the application has been rejected without understanding the provisions of Section 65 of the Customs Act and provisions of "MOORW Scheme". Submission of responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l to the [Commissioner (Appeals)] [within sixty days] from the date of the communication to him of such decision or order: [Provided that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days.] [(1A) The Commissioner (Appeals) may, if sufficient cause is shown at any stage of hearing of an appeal, grant time, from time to time, to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing of the appeal for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal.] (2) Ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter X, and the rules made thereunder: Provided further that] the Appellate Tribunal may, in its discretion, refuse to admit an appeal in respect of an order referred to in clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) where- (i) the value of the goods confiscated without option having been given to the owner of the goods to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation under section 125; or (ii) in any disputed case, other than a case where 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 is in issue or is one of the points in issue, the difference in duty involved or the duty involved; or (iii) the amount of fine or penalty determined by such order, does not exceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous remedy is provided. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. In view of the above, the present petition, i.e. W.P. No.14776/2025, fails and is hereby dismissed and consequently W.Ps. No.14792/2025, 14777/2025, 14789/2025, 14790/2025 and 14779/2025 are also hereby dismissed. 17. So far as W.Ps. No.16067/2025 and 16204/2025 are concerned, as on today, only the notice for cancellation has been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner may submit a reply to the impugned show cause notice, and if any adverse order is passed, then the petitioner shall have a remedy of appeal. 18. Accordingly, W.Ps. No.16067/2025 and 16204/2025 are also hereby dismissed. 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
