TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Orders Timely Adjudication in Customs Case, Respondent Given Four Weeks to Complete</h1> <h3>JAMES G. PRAKASH Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR), CHENNAI</h3> The Madras High Court, in a case concerning Customs and Central Excise, addressed delays in the adjudication process by the respondent. Despite the ... Notice of motion - Private notice - No counter has been filed so far by the respondent, even after more than 2 years and 11 months, which shows the casual nature, the court proceedings are treated by the office of the Commissioner of Customs - It has come to the notice of this Court that in several cases relating to Customs and Central Excise, the former counsel states that they have handed over the papers and consequently, the Department is unrepresented - The Central Board of Customs and Excise should take note of the situation and issue suitable direction to the respective Chief Commissioners to ensure proper representation in Court proceedings - The Writ Petition is disposed of Issues:1. Delay in completing adjudication process by the respondent in a case related to Customs and Central Excise.2. Lack of proper representation from the Department of Customs in court proceedings.3. Request for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to complete the adjudication process.Analysis:The judgment delivered by Justice R. Sudhakar of the Madras High Court addresses the issue of delay in completing the adjudication process by the respondent in a case related to Customs and Central Excise. The petitioner had filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to complete the adjudication pursuant to a show cause notice issued in F.N.O.S.N. 7 & 8 of 2005 A.C.I.U., dated 4-3-2006 within a specified time frame.The court noted that despite the notice of motion being ordered on 11-12-2007 and the respondent being served, no counter had been filed even after more than 2 years and 11 months. The court expressed concern over the casual approach of the office of the Commissioner of Customs towards the court proceedings, highlighting the lack of representation from the Department of Customs in the case. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely completion of adjudication processes in cases related to Customs and Central Excise.Furthermore, the judgment highlighted instances where the Department of Customs had been unrepresented in court proceedings due to issues such as former counsels handing over papers without proper instructions or officers not responding to calls. The judgment called upon the Central Board of Customs and Excise to take note of such situations and issue suitable directions to ensure proper representation in court proceedings.In conclusion, considering the nature of relief sought in the Writ Petition, the court directed the respondent to complete the adjudication process within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs imposed, emphasizing the importance of timely and proper adjudication processes in cases related to Customs and Central Excise.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
