Allowed

J.J. Polyplast Private Limited and Anr. v. the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Mar 2011WP/341/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions challenging an order dated 12/12/2010 were deemed heard. The impugned order was found to violate a prior court order and an Apex Court judgment. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs was directed to withdraw the impugned order and pass a fresh one within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 12/10/2010 was cancelled and withdrawn. Respondent No.1 is directed to pass a fresh order within four weeks.

J.J. Polyplast Private Limited and Anr. Vs the Assistant… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 wp286-11+2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.286 OF 2011

K.K. Products

..Petitioner.

V/s.

The Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.341 OF 2011

¶11

J.J. Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

¶12

..Petitioners.

¶13

V/s.

¶14

The Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

¶15

..Respondents.

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO.342 OF 2011

¶17

J.J. Poly Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

¶18

..Petitioners.

¶19

V/s.

¶20

The Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

¶21

..Respondents.

¶22

Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, senior Advocate with Anil D'souza i/b. Yashpal Jain and Abhijeet Shinde for petitioner

¶23

Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for respondents.

¶24

CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶25

DATED : 3RD MARCH, 2011

¶26

P.C. :-

¶27

Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶28

By consent, all the petitions are taken up for final hearing.

¶29

2 wp286-11+2

¶30

These petitions are filed to challenge the order in original dated 12/12/2010. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said order has been passed in gross violation of the order passed by this Court on 11/08/2009 in Writ Petition No.1296 of 2009 wherein this Court directed the respondents to pass order after considering the submissions of the petitioners and also the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Varsha Plastics Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 193 (S.C.). Since the assessing officer has neither considered the judgment of the Apex Court nor considered the submissions made by the petitioners, Mr. Jetly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instructions from Mr.P.R. Kulkarni, Assistant Commissioner of Customs who is present in the Court, states that the Officer is willing to withdraw the impugned order dated 12/10/2010 and pass fresh order within four weeks from today. In view of the statement made, the order dated 12/10/2010 is treated as cancelled and withdrawn. The respondent No.1 is directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law within four weeks from today.

¶31

The petitioners to appear before Mr. P.R. Kulkarni, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Group II C&D on 14/3/2011 at 12.00 O' clock.

¶32

Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to

¶33

costs.

¶34

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

J.J. Polyplast Private Limited and Anr. v. the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.J. Polyplast Private Limited and Anr. v. the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Mumbai. Vs Aerosys, Mumbai.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Mumbai. Vs Aerosys, Nashik.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nashik. Vs Aerosys, Nashik.

Wadhwani Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Inderpal Singh Gujral

International Association of Drilling Contractors (South Central Asia Chapter) and Anr. Vs the Union of India and Ors.