Allowed

M/S. Anand Paints & Hardware v. the Customs Excise and Service

Madras HC5 Mar 2019WP/41003/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 226 to condone a 67-day delay in filing an appeal before the Customs Tribunal. The petition was permitted for the specific purpose of condoning delay, with liberty to prosecute the appeal within 15 days of receiving the order.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 67 days in filing appeal condoned; liberty to prosecute appeal within 15 days of receipt of order.

M/S. Anand Paints & Hardware Vs the Customs Excise… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.03.2019

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

W.P.No.41003 of 2006

and

M.P.No.1 of 2006

M/s.Anand Paints & Hardware Stores,

¶8

No.4-d/12, Jwala Heri Market,

¶9

Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110 063.

¶10

Rep. by Y.K.Anand(Proprietor) ...Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, I floor, Shastri Bhavan Annexe, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶13

2.The Commissioner of Customs(Exports) Custom House, No.60,Rajaji Salai,

¶14

Chennai- 600 001.

¶15

3.The Additional Director General,

¶16

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit,

¶17

No.25, Gopalakrishna Road,

¶18

T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. ...Respondent

¶19

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the entire records relating to the final order No.554/2006 dated 03.07.2006 of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to condone the delay of 67 days in filing the appeal in the interest of justice and to hear their appeal on merit.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkatachalam

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.M.Hariharan AGP for R1 and R3

¶22

K.S.Ramasamy for R-2

¶23

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

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This Writ Petition has been filed for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the final order No.554/2006 dated 03.07.2006 of the first respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to condone the delay of 67 days in filing the appeal.

¶26

2.When the matter came up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that he has no objection, if the writ petition is allowed, in view of the fact that it is only for the purpose of condoning the delay of 67 days in filing the appeal.

¶27

3.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the delay of 67 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent is condoned. Consequently, the petitioner is at liberty to prosecute the appeal before the first respondent, if it so desires, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rrg To 1.The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,South Zonal Bench, I floor, Shastri Bhavan Annexe, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 006. 2.The Commissioner of Customs(Exports) Custom House, No.60,Rajaji Salai, Chennai- 600 001. 3.The Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit, No.25, Gopalakrishna Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. +1cc to Mr.K.S.Ramasamy, Advocate, S.R.No.20395 W.P.No.41003 of 2006

¶28

CA(CO) rrs 27/03/2019

¶29

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

M/S. Anand Paints & Hardware v. the Customs Excise and Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Anand Paints & Hardware v. the Customs Excise and Service

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

S.Thangapandian Vs the District Collector

Francis Xavier, Vs Khaja Uduman

Alltran Worldwide Logistics, Vs Compass Shipping and Trading

K Premkumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M/S. Kanipaga Vinayaga Vs the Asst. Commissioner (Urban

Tamil Nadu Revenue Department Vs the Secretary to Govt. of