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>Court grants petitioner appeal under Customs Act, stresses timely Tribunal decision.</h1> <h3>M/s Auto Dynamic Corporation Versus Union of India</h3> The court allowed the petitioner to pursue an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal by the Tribunal ... Demand of differential duty - Demand of bank guarantee - Held that:- petitioner is allowed to avail the alternative remedy of appeal as provided under Section 129A of the Act within the period of limitation, which according to learned counsel for the petitioner is still subsisting. It is, however, observed that in case an appeal is filed within the period of limitation, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously by the Tribunal preferably within one month from the date of filing of the appeal in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Challenge to onerous conditions in provisional release order under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging the onerous conditions imposed in a provisional release order. The petitioner sought to quash the conditions, including the requirement to furnish a bank guarantee of 25% of the goods' value and payment of 100% of alleged differential duty, along with a prayer for the release of 6 containers.The respondents raised a preliminary objection, contending that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, which lies with the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. In response, the petitioner expressed willingness to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the alternate remedy under Section 129A. The petitioner requested a time-bound direction for the Tribunal to decide the appeal within one month from filing.In disposing of the petition, the court allowed the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 129A within the period of limitation. The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal, preferably within one month from the appeal's filing date, in accordance with the law. This decision ensures that the petitioner can seek redress through the prescribed appellate process while emphasizing timely resolution of the matter by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
