The Single Judge Court dismissed the revenue appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, noting that the Revenue had conceded the issue before the Tribunal that the respondent was not an importer, thus failing to raise a substantial question of law.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
24-1-CUAPP-41-18.doc
Sharayu Khot .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2018
The Commissioner of Customs …Appellant (Preventive)
Versus
M/s. Vaj Marketing & Investments P.Ltd. …Respondent
Mr. Sham Walve a/w Mr. Ram Ochani, for the Appellant.
Mr. Harmaz Daruwalla a/w Mr. Rahul Jain, i/by Alpha Chambers, for the Respondent.
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 8 October 2018
SharayuPandurangKhot Digitally signedby SharayuPandurang KhotDate: 2018.10.1111:47:41 +1200
ORDER :
1962 challenges the order dated 25th July 2017 of the Customs,
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “ the
1 / 3
October 8, 2018
24-1-CUAPP-41-18.doc
Tribunal ”).
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Tribunal justified in holding
that the Respondent herein is not an importer?
dated 25th July 2017 held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Respondent could not be held to be an importer. This was agreed/accepted to by the Appellant-Revenue herein.
before the Tribunal in favour of the Respondent, the issue ceases to be a debatable issue which would give rise to a substantial question of law for our consideration.
2 / 3
October 8, 2018
24-1-CUAPP-41-18.doc
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd . (supra) had after accepting the view of the Tribunal, further observed that where concession of the Revenue has been recorded in the order of the Tribunal, then no substantial question of law would arise for our consideration. Thus, the question as proposed in the present facts, does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.
as to costs.
[RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.] [M.S. SANKLECHA, J.]
3 / 3 October 8, 2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Respondent could not be held to be an importer.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) LtdReferred¶31
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner of Customs
M/s. Vaj Marketing & Investments P.Ltd.
M.S. Sanklecha
Riyaz I. Chagla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
