Disposed

Sandoz Private Limited v. the Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Dept. of Revenue and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Oct 2014WP/4159/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Upon representation by the Respondents regarding the officer authorized to hear a pending appeal, this Court directed the incumbent Commissioner (Appeals-II) to dispose of the appeal within two months and to refrain from burdening him with non-adjudicatory duties during this period.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sandoz Private Limited Vs the Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Dept. of Revenue and Ors. — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Shiv

¶2

w4159.14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4159 OF 2014

¶5

Sandoz Private Ltd. .. Petitioners. Vs. The Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Prakash Shah i/b PDS Legal for the Petitioners. Mr. S.P. Bharati for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.K. MENON, JJ.

¶8

DATED : 7TH OCTOBER, 2014.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

At the request of Respondents the matter was placed today for Mr.Bharati to ascertain as to which officer or authority will decide the pending appeal.

¶11

Mr.Bharati has been kind enough to produce before us a xerox copy of the communication from the Chief Commissioner authorising the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Excise, to hear pending appeal preferred by the Petitioners and dispose it of in accordance with law.

¶12

We take a copy of this office order on record and mark it “X” for identification. We hope that the Commissioner (AppealsII) will decide the appeal after hearing the Petitioners in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶13

Mr.Shah prays that the appellate authority now placed

¶14

1/2

¶15

w4159.14

¶16

in charge should be directed to dispose of the pending appeal within 8 to 12 weeks or else the Petitioners may have to approach this Court again. We inquired from Mr.Bharati as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) is appointed and holding that post or he is likely to take charge from a assigned date in future. Mr.Bharati has been fair enough to state that this officer has taken charge recently but he would endeavor to dispose of the appeal. We find that if the authority has not been functional for quite sometime then he is bound to be entrusted with several matters and possibly called upon to dispose them of within a time schedule. In other words, a target would be set for him.

¶17

It would be grossly unfair if the Commissionerate functions in this manner. Let the officer who is now in office dispose of the pending appeal as expeditiously as possible and within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Petitioners will co-operate in early disposal of the appeal by not seeking unnecessary adjournment. We would expect the Chief Commissioner not to burden him with other duties and work and not connected with adjudication. All contentions of both sides on merits are kept open.

¶18

Nothing further survives in this petition. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

(A.K. MENON,J.)

¶20

(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)

¶21

2/2

Sandoz Private Limited v. the Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Dept. of Revenue and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sandoz Private Limited v. the Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Dept. of Revenue and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Ii, Pune Vs M/S.Shubhamangal Constructions

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii,Thane. Vs M/S. Sandeep Builders

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-Ii, Vs M/S. Tolaram and Co.

Goenka Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue and Ors.

M/S Godrej Industries Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise

The Commissioner of Income TAX-21 Vs M/S. Sneha Enterprises.