Dismissed

The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Deendayal Didwania and Navneet Kumar Didwania

Bombay HC19 Oct 2018NMA/2010/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a notice of motion for stay of an appellate tribunal order under the Customs Act, the High Court of Bombay held that mere admission of an appeal does not warrant a stay. Consequently, the application to restrain the return of deposited funds was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Notice of Motion dismissed; Applicant to refund deposited amount.

The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

3-NMA-2010-17.doc

¶2

Sharayu Khot .

¶3

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

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2010 OF 2017 IN

¶5

CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 36 OF 2017

¶6

The Principal Commissioner of Customs …Applicant/ (Preventive) Appellant

Versus

Navneet Didwania

…Respondent

Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, for the Applicant/Appellant.

¶11

Mr. Vivek Kantawala, a/w Mr. Amey Patil, Mr. Jash Vyas, i/by M/s. Vivek Kantawala & Co., for the Respondent.

¶12

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 19 October 2018

¶14

ORDER :

¶15

This Motion has been taken out in a pending Appeal

¶16

1 / 4

¶17

October 19, 2018

¶18

3-NMA-2010-17.doc

¶19

under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1966 (“ the Act ”) filed against the Order dated 24th April 2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “ the Tribunal ”).

¶20

The Appeal was admitted on 24th September 2018. This Application seeks stay of the impugned order dated 24th April 2017 to the extent the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- which has been deposited by the Respondent herein should continue to remain with the Revenue till final disposal of the Appeal.

¶21

In support of the Application, Shri. Jetly, the learned Counsel states that the Appeal against the impugned order dated 24th April 2017 has been admitted for consideration. This, according to the Revenue, would itself warrant a stay of the impugned order dated 24th April 2017 and therefore, there is no requirement of return of the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, which was deposited by the Respondent during the proceedings before the Authorities under the Act. It is secondly submitted

¶22

2 / 4 October 19, 2018

¶23

3-NMA-2010-17.doc

¶24

that there was an ad-interim stay of the impugned order dated

¶25

24th April 2017 granted on 8th November 2017. Thus, an adinterim stay which was granted, should continue till disposal of the Appeal.

¶26

Admission of an Appeal merely indicates that the question as urged gives rise to debatable issues. This by itself would not warrant a stay of the order dated 24th April 2017 passed by the Tribunal. So far as the grant of ad-interim stay dated 8th November 2017 is concerned, we note that the aforesaid order was passed when the Applicant sought time to remove office objections. At that time, an ad-interim stay was granted restraining the Respondent from recovering any amount from Revenue. This ad-interim order dated 8th November 2017 came to an end on 14th December 2018.

¶27

No extra ordinary circumstances are pointed out which would justify depriving the Respondents, the fruit of its success before the Tribunal founded in the impugned order

¶28

3 / 4

¶29

October 19, 2018

¶30

3-NMA-2010-17.doc

¶31

dated 24th April 2017.

¶32

Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

¶33

[RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.] [M.S. SANKLECHA, J.]

¶34

4 / 4 October 19, 2018

The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Deendayal Didwania and Navneet Kumar Didwania

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Deendayal Didwania and Navneet Kumar Didwania

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

M/S. Viraj Profiles Ltd. Vs Union of India , through Its Secretary (Revenue) and Ors.

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

Bum Bum Steel Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise Vs Dilip Kumar Jindal

The Commissioner of Central Excise Kolhapur Commissionerate Vs M/S Kirloskar Brothers Ltd.