Dismissed

Shri Balaji Apparels v. the Customs, Excise and

Madras HC8 Dec 2017WP/8226/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a ten-year-old writ petition filed by Balaji Apparels challenging the dismissal of a customs appeal. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as an appeal alone under Section 130 of the Customs Act was the proper remedy, and dismissed the petition due to revenue implications.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is dismissed as not maintainable.

Shri Balaji Apparels Vs the Customs, Excise and — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.12.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.No.8226 of 2007

¶7

Shri Balaji Apparels, Rep. by its Partner, Mr.M.A.Elangovan, 41-B, Medavakkam High Road, Keelkattali, Chennai 600 117 .. Petitioner Vs.

¶8

1. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Sasthri Bhavan Annexe Building, 26, Haddows Road,

¶9

Chennai 600 006

¶10

1. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Office of the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

¶11

1. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Group III and IV, Office of the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records comprised in Stay Order No.1090/2006 dated 08.11.2006 and consequential final Order No.85/2007 dated 25.1.2007, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to take up the appeal and dispose the same on merits without insistence on pre-deposit.

¶13

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶14

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mariappan For RR 2 & 3 : Mrs.Dr.S.Seethalakshmi, Learned Standing Counsel

¶16

ORDER

¶17

There is no representation on the side of the writ petitioner. The

¶18

writ petition is taken up for final hearing today. The writ petition is of the year 2007 and has been pending before this Court for about a period of 10 years and involves revenue to the Government, this writ petition is being disposed of, based on the available records and the submission of the learned counsel for the second and third respondent.

¶19

The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the

¶20

dismissal of the appeal filed before the 1^st respondent under Section 129 of the Customs Act. The appeal was dismissed by the first respondent on 25.01.2007 for not complying with the conditional order dated 08.11.2006 in the waiver of pre-deposit application filed by the petitioner. By an order dated 08.11.2006, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50 lakhs by the first respondent as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal under Section 129 of the Customs Act. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal filed under Section 129 of the Customs Act, the petitioner has filed this instant appeal.

¶21

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶22

¶23

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 submits that, as against the dismissal order of the first respondent, a civil miscellaneous appeal is alone maintainable before this Court, under Section 130 of the Customs Act. According to her, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is

¶24

not maintainable.

¶25

4.Having seen the provision under Section 130 of the Customs Act, this Court also finds that an appeal alone is maintainable before this Court against the dismissal order passed by the first respondent under Section 129 of the Customs Act. Further, this Court is of the view that since the subject matter involves revenue to the Government, the writ petition cannot be kept pending for a long period. This Court, therefore, holds that the present writ petition is not maintainable, since an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act is alone maintainable.

¶26

Considering the same, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶27

08.12.2017

¶28

sts/pam

¶29

Speaking Order Internet: Yes Index : Yes

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

¶32

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.,

¶33

sts/pam

¶34

To:

¶35

1. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Sasthri Bhavan Annexe Building, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006

¶36

1. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Office of the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

¶37

1. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Group III and IV, Office of the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

¶38

W.P.No.8226 of 2007

¶39

08.12.2017

¶40

http://www.judis.nic.in

Shri Balaji Apparels v. the Customs, Excise and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Balaji Apparels v. the Customs, Excise and

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

The Branch Manager, Vs Rajammal

Krishnamma Vs Tnstc Ltd.

M.Sharuk Suraj Vs S.Suresh

S. Senthamil Selvam Vs the Principal Secretary to

M.Nithanantham(Died) Vs Devadass

S.Sudhakar Alias Shanmugam Vs M.Thennarasu