Allowed

Jai Bharat Steel Rolling Mills v. Union of India through Its Joint Secretary Ministry of Law and Affairs and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC27 Sept 2018NMA/451/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed Notice of Motion for condonation of delay of 1269 days in filing appeal to Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, accepting that a writ petition within limitation period disposed of on 5th February 2018 constituted bona fide prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Notice of Motion for condonation of delay allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

Jai Bharat Steel Rolling Mills Vs Union of India through… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

451-18-NMA-9=.doc

¶2

Uday S. Jagtap

¶3

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

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 451 OF 2018 IN

¶5

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO. 53 OF 2018

¶6

Jai Bharat Steel Rolling Mills .. Applicant

¶7

In the matter between Jai Bharat Steel Rolling Mills .. Appellant

¶8

v/s. Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents

¶9

Mr. R.N. Gaonkar I/b Mr. Ashok Singh for the applicant / orig. appellant None for the respondents

¶10

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA &

¶11

RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.J.

¶12

DATED : 27^th SEPTEMBER, 2018.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

None appears for the respondent despite the motion being served.

¶15

Mr. Gaonkar, learned Counsel appearing in support of the motion

¶16

tenders an affidavit of service of Mr. Pravin Pendhari, dated 27^th September, 2018.

¶17

This application has been taken out for condonation of delay of

¶18

Digitally signed by Uday Uday Shivaji Jagtap Date: Shivaji 2018.09.28 11:05:23 Jagtap +0530

1 of 3

451-18-NMA-9=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

1269 days delay in filing an appeal from the order dated 11^th August, 2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal).

¶23

Mr. Gaonkar, invites our attention to the affidavit in support of the motion and points out that the order dated 11^th August, 2014 passed by the Tribunal was received by the applicant on 26^th September, 2014. The applicant instead of filing an appeal within stipulated period of 180 days from the receipt of the order dated 11^th August, 2014, filed a writ petition in this Court on 15^th March, 2015 being Writ Petition No.13853 of 2016. This filing of the writ petition was within 180 days period for filing an appeal from the order of the Tribunal as provided under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 11^th August, 2014 was dismissed on 5^th February, 2018 on the ground that there is an efficacious alternate remedy of an appeal under the Act. In the above view, this accompanying appeal as well as this application for condonation of delay was filed on 14^th March, 2018.

¶24

We are satisfied with the above reasons as the applicant was bona fide prosecuting its challenge to the order dated 11^th August, 2014

2 of 3

451-18-NMA-9=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

of the Tribunal before this Court in its writ jurisdiction and the same was disposed of on 5^th February, 2018.

¶29

Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶30

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.)

¶31

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶32

3 of 3

Jai Bharat Steel Rolling Mills v. Union of India through Its Joint Secretary Ministry of Law and Affairs and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Bharat Steel Rolling Mills v. Union of India through Its Joint Secretary Ministry of Law and Affairs and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Landmark Enterprises Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Mr. Nikhil Sushil Agarwal Partner of Impex LLP Vs Union of India , Directorate of Revenue Intelligence , Mumbai Zone and Ors.

Shubham Jain and Ors. Vs Union of India Thru Directorate of Revenue Intelligence , Mummbai Zonal Unitl and Ors.

Xyz Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rochem Separation Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India through the Jt. Secty. and Ors.

Fir Payment Solutions and Services India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence and Anr.