Disposed

Commissioner of Customs v. M.K.Saseendran

Kerala HC7 Jan 2020OP (CAT)/15/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An original petition was heard to determine if the court could dispose of the matter while the department sought time to obtain vigilance clearance. The court closed the original petition based on the department's decision to drop proceedings, reserving the petitioner's right to resume the case if clearance is denied.

What did the court decide?

The original petition was closed with liberty to the petitioner to move for resumption if vigilance clearance is denied to the department.

Commissioner of Customs Vs M.K.Saseendran — Customs and Excise | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941

¶7

OP (CAT).No.15 OF 2014(Z)

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 1166/2012 DATED 06-092013 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

1 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN 682009, KERALA,

¶11

2 CHAIRMAN CENTRALBOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI

¶12

3 CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CSTOMS, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, COCHIN 682018,, KERALA,

¶13

4 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, MANACHIRA, CALICUT 673001

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR SMT.PREETHA S. NAIR, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AMP CUSTO

¶16

RESPONDENT/S:

¶17

1 M.K.SASEENDRAN

¶18

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS (RETD), PARASMAHAL, TEMPLEGATE P.O, THELLICHERRY 673102. KERALA,

¶19

2 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BYTHE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

¶20

O.P.(CAT) No. 15 of 2014

¶21

-2-

¶22

REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NOTRH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001

¶23

3 UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ADV DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DLEHI 110001

¶24

4 CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSIONER STARKTA BHAVAN, BLOCK A GPO COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI 110023

¶25

R1 BY ADV. SMT.CHANDINI G.NAIR R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR R2 BY ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R2-4 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

¶26

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶27

FOLLOWING:

¶28

O.P.(CAT) No. 15 of 2014

¶29

-3-

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Dated this the 7^th day of January, 2020

¶32

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶33

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Department submits that proceedings against the first respondent has been dropped by the Department. But, however, there is a formality of getting vigilance clearance to affirm the decision of the Department, which would take time. The learned Standing Counsel seeks time of two weeks to get vigilance clearance.

¶34

We are sure that within that time, there would be no vigilance clearance issued. In the context of the Department having decided to drop the proceedings, we close the original petition, leaving liberty to the petitioner to

¶35

O.P.(CAT) No. 15 of 2014

¶36

-4-

¶37

move for resumption of the original petition if at all vigilance

clearance is denied.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶43

Scl/07. 01.2020 x

Commissioner of Customs v. M.K.Saseendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Customs v. M.K.Saseendran

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

Union of India Vs P.Sivaraman

Union of India Vs K.S.Surendranath

The Southern Railway Vs K. Natarajan

The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Vs Sukumaran S.

Union of India Vs P. Padmakumar

The Commissioner Vs Ramachandran Embranthiri