Dismissed

The Pr. Commissioner of Customs (Import-I), Mumbai v. M/S. L and T Sapura Shipping Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Jan 2018CUAPP/3/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench adjourned a customs appeal due to the Appellant's absence. Upon the Appellant's continued failure to prosecute and refuse to clarify jurisdictional issues raised by the previous order, the Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.

What the court decided

The Pr. Commissioner of Customs (Import-I), Mumbai Vs M/S… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

suresh

¶2

7-CUAPP-3.2017.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.3 OF 2017

¶5

The Pr. Commissioner of Customs (Import-I), Mumbai .... Appellant Vs. M/s. L & T Sapura Shipping Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .... Respondents

¶6

Mr. Swapnil Bangur for the Appellant. Mr. Jitendra Motwani i/by Economic Laws Practice for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.

¶8

DATE : JANUARY 15, 2018

¶9

P.C:

¶10

1. On 4-1-2018, this appeal was listed before a Division

¶11

Bench of this Court and it passed the following order:-

¶12

"1. None appears on behalf of the Appellant – Revenue in support of the Appeal.

¶13

2. The basic question raised for our consideration by the Revenue is whether the benefit of an exemption notification can be extended inspite of failure to observe the conditions therein.

Page 1 of 3

suresh

7-CUAPP-3.2017.doc

3. It appears that the issue raised in this Appeal seems to be applicability of Notification No.21 of 2002 dated 1^st March 2002. In the above view prima facie an Appeal against such an order would be before the Supreme Court in terms of Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and not here.

¶18

4. However, the Appellant is not represented. It appears that it is not interested in prosecuting this Appeal. Therefore, we are adjourning the Appeal to 10^th January 2018 to be posted under the caption for dismissal. It is made clear that if on the next date the Appellant is not represented, the appeal itself is likely to be dismissed for non prosecution.

¶19

5. Stand over to 10^th January 2018."

¶20

The Division Bench was very kind and generous and

¶21

did not dismiss the appeal in the absence of either the Department or its counsel.

¶22

However, its above referred order is clear.

¶23

We repeatedly asked Mr. Bangur as to how in the teeth of this order does the Revenue feel that the appeal lies and before this Court. Despite sufficient time being available for him to take proper instructions, he was unable to answer our query. We had granted him time on 10-1-2018 as well.

Page 1 of 3

suresh

7-CUAPP-3.2017.doc

We do not think that we can bifurcate the issues like

¶28

this and as the Revenue desires. If the core issue is noted by the Division Bench and yet the Revenue is adamant and does not want to indicate to the Court its stand, then, we are not obliged to continue and hear Mr. Bangur on whether this appeal involves substantial question of law. The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶29

(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶30

Page 2 of 3

The Pr. Commissioner of Customs (Import-I), Mumbai v. M/S. L and T Sapura Shipping Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

The Pr. Commissioner of Customs (Import-I), Mumbai v. M/S. L and T Sapura Shipping Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

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

Dillip Damodar Mahajani Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sahayak...a Socio-Legal and Educational Forum Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India , through the Secretary and Ors.

Pragnesh B. Solanki Vs Union of India and 3 Other

E-Square Leisure Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mrs. Radha Gupta Vs the Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax and Ors.