Remanded

Roochitra Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. the Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Feb 2007WP/588/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted the petitioner a stay order enforcing a previous registration directive, subject to the respondent filing an appeal before the CESTAT within three weeks; otherwise, the directive must be complied with immediately.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted three weeks to respondents to file appeal before CESTAT and obtain stay; otherwise, respondents must comply with order dated 5th Dec 2006.

Roochitra Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.588 OF 2007

¶4

 Roochitra Textiles Pvt.Ltd. .. Petitioner.

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 The Union of India .. Respondents.

¶7

 Mr.Prakash Shah i/by M/s.PDS Legal
 for the petitioner.

¶8

 Mr.A.J. Rana, senior counsel with Mrs.N.V. Masurkar
 for the respondent.

¶9

CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
 J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2007.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶13

 By consent of the parties, taken up for final
 hearing.

¶14

 2. The learned counsel for the respondents
 waives service.

¶15

 3. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking
 implementation of the order dated 5th December, 2006
 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise
 has directed the respondents to issue the desired
 registration certificate to the petitioner. The
 petitioner is seeking such a registration for a
 factory at Boisar.

¶16

¶17

 4. The learned senior counsel appearing on
 behalf of the respondent pointed out that aggrieved
 by the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner
 (Appeals) dated 5th December, 2006, the respondent
 has been desirous of and in fact they have prepared
 necessary appeal to file, however, for the reasons
 set out in their affidavit-in-reply dated 5th
 February, 2007 the said appeal could not be filed
 till date in view of certain exigencies in the
 office.

¶18

 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
 of the case and also in view of the fact that the
 respondents are entitled to exercise their remedy of
 an appeal and also obtain stay with regard to the
 impugned order, we are inclined to pass the
 following order :

¶19

 (i) It is made clear that if the
 respondents fail to file an appeal before
 the CESTAT and obtain a stay with regard to
 the impugned order dated 5th December, 2006
 within a period of three weeks from today,
 the respondents shall forthwith comply with
 the impugned order dated 5th December, 2006.

¶20

¶21

 (ii) Needless to mention that in the
 event such an appeal is filed by the
 respondent, the same shall be decided by the
 CESTAT without being influenced by this
 order in any manner.

¶22

 6. The writ petition stands disposed of in
 terms of this order with no order as to costs.

¶23

 (DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)

¶24

 (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

Roochitra Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roochitra Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shreyas Trading Co. and Anr. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

the commissioner of income-tax-1,mum Vs m/s trident shipping agencies Pvt. Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Mumbai Vs M/S Trident Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

M/S.Vanaz Engineers Ltd. Vs Commissioner Central Excise

datar switchgear Ltd. Vs m.s.e.b. and Ors. and dsl enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

The Commissioner of Sales Ta Maharashtra State Mumbai Vs Blue Chip Tex Fuel Industries Ltd.