Dismissed

Shipping Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC4 Jan 2012WP/1228/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a customs notice. The court held the challenge was misconceived as the underlying issue was adjudicated, and both appeal and revision were barred by limitation under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1952.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; notice to show cause remains operative; no order as to costs.

Shipping Corporation of India Limited Vs Union of India… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2012)

wp1228-11

Dmt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGNAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1228 OF 2011

¶7

Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. .. Petitioner.

¶8

versus

¶9

Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents. .....

¶10

Ms. Usha Srivastava i/by Consulta Juris for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the Respondents.

¶12

......

¶13

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD &

A. A. SAYED, JJ.

04 JANUARY 2012.

P.C. :

The challenge in these proceedings under Article

¶18

226 of the Constitution is to a notice to show cause dated 22

¶19

May 1998. The challenge is thoroughly misconceived. The

wp1228-11

Dmt

notice to show cause was adjudicated upon and resulted in an

¶24

order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs dated 7

¶25

September 1999. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the order of adjudication on 2 March 2009 which was dismissed as barred by limitation. Thereafter a Revision Application was dismissed on 14 March 2011 by the Revisional Authority.

¶26

Under Section 128 (1) of the Customs Act, 1952 an

¶27

appeal has to be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) within sixty days of the date of communication of the decision or order appealed against. The Commissioner has power to condone the delay not exceeding a further period of thirty days. As noted by the Revisional Authority even if the contention of the Petitioner that the order of adjudication was communicated on 12 October 2007 is accepted as correct, even thereafter the delay was much beyond the period which can be condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals). Perhaps that is the

¶28

reason why the Petitioner has not sought to question either the

¶29

order of adjudication passed by the Assistant Commissioner or

wp1228-11

Dmt

for that matter the orders passed in appeal or revision. The appeal which was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore correct. No case for interference is made out. The Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order

¶34

as to costs.

¶35

(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)

¶36

(A. A. Sayed, J.)

Shipping Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shipping Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maharashtra Shaishanik and Arogya Vidyanagari, Thane and Ors. Vs Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State and Ors.

Sound Casting Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CIRCLE-2 and Ors.

M/S. Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax -I(5) and 5 Ors.

B.N. Upadhyay Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs the State of Mharashtra and 5 Ors.

Dr. Ninad S. Gaikwad Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Mumbai and 3 Ors.