Dismissed

M/S.Arun Processors Limited, v. the Superintendent

Madras HC20 Jul 2017WP/38795/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged the initiation of proceedings under show cause notices via a writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court held that since the relevant period had expired, the relief sought no longer survived, leading to the dismissal of the writ. Consequently, a connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S.Arun Processors Limited, Vs the Superintendent — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.07.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.38795 of 2003 and W.M.P.No.878 of 2009

¶6

M/s.Arun Processors Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Mr.A.Mohan having office at Singampettai, Bhavani Taluk, Periyar District, Tamil Nadu.

¶7

...Petitioner vs. 1.The Superintendent, Central Excise, Gobi Range, Gobichettipalayam – 639 452. 2.The Commissioner of Central Excise, Foulks Compound, Anai Road, Salem – 636 001. 3.Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001. ...Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Writ of Mandamus forbearing respondents 1 & 2 from proceeding to take action under the show cause notices dated 13.01.2000 having reference No.O.C.No.94 of 2000 and 14.03.2000 having reference No.C.No.V/60/15/48/2000 issued by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents until the amnesty scheme is introduced by the 3^rd respondent for compounding excise related offences by amending the Central Excise Act.

¶9

For Petitioner : Ms.C.Uma for Mr.L.S.M.Hasen Fizal For Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareswaran SPC (R1 to R3)

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The period in question for which the relief sought for, has already expired, and hence, nothing further survives for consideration in this Writ Petition, which is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶13

Sd/-

¶14

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶15

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pam
To
1.The Superintendent,
Central Excise, Gobi Range,
Gobichettipalayam – 639 452.
2.The Commissioner of Central Excise,
Foulks Compound, Anai Road,
Salem – 636 001.
3.The Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi – 110 001.
+1cc to Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Advocate SR.No.52443
W.P.No.38795 of 2003
and W.M.P.No.878 of 2009
LRS(CO)
GN(08/08/2017)

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S.Arun Processors Limited, v. the Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S.Arun Processors Limited, v. the Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Oriental Hotels Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s. Dawood Stationery Paper Vs Assistant Commissioner,(Ct)

M/s.Navasakthi Township Vs The Commissioner of Central

M/S.Nexus Transcore Industries Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

Chennai Metropolitan Developme Vs the Asst Commr (Ult)

K.Sekaran Vs 1.THE Prl.Commr. and Commr.