Allowed

The Union of India v. M/S Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2021WA/168/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.38798 of 2019. The Court clarified that the impugned order was not a categorical direction to grant exemption but to direct consideration of the representation under the relevant Notification. The appeal and a stay application were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 38798 of 2019 stands clarified. Respondent No.4 is directed to consider the representation within six weeks.

The Union of India Vs M/S Dalmia… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.168 OF 2020 (T-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶11

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NEW CUSTOM HOUSE PANAMBUR MANGALURU-575 010. KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NEW CUSTOM HOUSE PANAMBUR

¶14

¶15

MANGALURU-575 010. KARNATAKA.

¶16

... APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI:ARAVIND K.V., ADVOCATE (PH))

¶18

AND:

¶19

M/S DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LIMITED YADWAD VILLAGE GOKAK TALUK DISTRICT BELGAUM KARNATAKA-591 136. (REPRESENTED BY SRI.R.GURURAJAN DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

¶20

...RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI:RAVI RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE (VC))

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.38798 OF 2019 (T-RES) DATED 02/01/2020.

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing,

¶26

with the consent of learned counsel for both sides, it is

¶27

heard finally.

¶28

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to paragraph 3 of the impugned order dated 02/01/2020 passed in Writ Petition No.38798 of 2019 and submitted that the learned Single Judge by the said order had directed consideration of the representation dated 16/07/2019 and had not intended to make any observation on the merit of the case. But inadvertently, in paragraph 4 at line 4, the expression “by granting exemption of the SWS amount in terms of the Notification dated 08/04/2015 contained in Annexure-E,” gives an impression that there is a direction issued by the learned Single Judge to grant exemption and hence, the same may be modified.

¶30

In this regard, learned counsel for the

¶31

appellants contrasted the contents of paragraph 4 of the impugned order with paragraph 3 thereof.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that input of the impugned order is only to issue a direction to consider the representation of the respondent in terms of the Notification dated 08/04/2015

¶33

¶34

at Annexure-D to the writ petition and no opinion has been expressed by the learned Single Judge.

¶35

In that view of the matter, we clarify the order of the learned Single Judge by observing that the contents of paragraph 4 directing respondent No.4 in the writ petition to consider the representation made with regard to assessment of Bills of Entry in the context of granting exemption of the SWS amount in terms of the Notification dated 08/04/2015 (Annexure-D) to the writ petition, there is no categorical direction to grant any exemption in terms of the said Notification. The representation has to be considered in accordance with law.

¶36

With the aforesaid clarification, the appeal stands disposed.

¶37

Since the time limit granted by the learned Single Judge to consider the representation has expired, the same shall now be considered within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶38

¶39

In view of the disposal of appeal, IA.1 of 2020 filed

¶40

for stay also stands disposed.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

*bgn/-

The Union of India v. M/S Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India v. M/S Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited

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

Smt Ashwin Goud Vs Sri Vineeth Byrashettar

Sri Jagannath Puttaswamy Vs Smt Rashmi Rani

Mr Vineeth Byrashettar Vs Smt Ashwini Goud N J

M/S Ssjv Projects Private Limited Vs Canara Bank

The Authorised Officer Vs S N Mahadeva

Sri M Diwakar Babu Vs the Commissioner