Remanded

Abdul Hussain Taherbhai Lokhandwala v. the Union of India Athough Acommissioner of Customs

Bombay HC16 Apr 2009CUAPP/16/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order of the Bombay High Court set aside an impugned order dated 18.08.2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) due to the absence of prior notice to the appellant, and restored the matter to CESTAT for a fresh hearing with mutual appearance.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.08.2005 set aside; matter restored to CESTAT for fresh hearing with both parties to appear on 28.04.2009.

Abdul Hussain Taherbhai Lokhandwala Vs the Union of India… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2009

¶5

 Abdul Hussain Taherbhai Lokhandwala ..Appellant

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 The Union of India & Anr. ..Respondents

¶8

 Mr. Nitin B.Patil i/b. Mr. Yogesh Rohira for the
 appellant.

¶9

 Mr. R.V.Desai, Senior Counsel ith Mr. Suresh Kumar for
 the respondents.

¶10

CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND

¶11

 J.H.BHATIA, JJ.

¶12

DATE: 16th April, 2009.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

 1. The appellant has come in appeal against the order
 dated 18.8.2005. The main contention on behalf of the
 appellant is that he had no notice of the hearing and
 consequently the order whereby the appeal was partly
 allowed should be set aside. The submission is two-fold.

¶15

¶16

 Firstly, the Tribunal could not have gone on merits in
 the absence of the appellant and secondly the matter
 could not have been heard without due notice to him.

¶17

 2. On behalf of the respondents, the learned Counsel
 fairly concedes that after going through the record and
 also the affidavit he finds that the appellant had no
 notice of the appeal.

¶18

 3. Considering the above, the impugned order dated
 18th August 2005 is set aside. The matter is restored
 back to file of CESTAT to decide the matter afresh. Both
 parties to appear before the CESTAT on 28th April, 2009
 at 11.00 a.m. for further directions and also produce a
 copy of this order before the CESTAT.

¶19

 Appeal disposed of accordingly.

¶20

(F.I.REBELLO,J.)

¶21

(J.H.BHATIA,J.)

Abdul Hussain Taherbhai Lokhandwala v. the Union of India Athough Acommissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hussain Taherbhai Lokhandwala v. the Union of India Athough Acommissioner of Customs

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

M/S. Mittal Constructions Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai II , Mumbai Vs M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S. Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd.

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S.P. K. International Vs Union of India and Anr.

Director of Enforcement Vs the New Greatest Eastern Spg.and Wvg.Co.Lt.D and Anr.