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 orders respondent to act on writ petition, grants petitioner additional representation, stresses fair consideration.</h1> <h3>R. Mahaveer Pipada Versus The Joint Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication-AIR) O/o. The Principal Commissioner of Customs Commissionrate Chennai-1 (Airport) New Customs House, Meenambakkam, Chennai</h3> The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent to pass appropriate orders within three months. The petitioner was granted permission to ... Seeking opportunity to substantiate the claim - HELD THAT:- As per order in the case of ABISHEK MUNDHRA VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION-AIR) , O/O. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS COMMISSIONARATE, CHENNAI – 1 (AIRPORT) , NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, MEENAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI [2019 (8) TMI 1823 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], the respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, due to pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent was unable to take up the proceedings. Since, order in original No. 95/17/02/2015, dated 17.02.2015 has already been set aside and is hereby disposed in the said order. The writ petition stands allowed - The respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Issues:Challenge to impugned order by petitioner, remand for fresh consideration, delay in passing orders, direction for respondent to pass appropriate orders within three months, permission for petitioner to file additional representation.Analysis:The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, which was set aside by the court in a previous writ petition. The court emphasized granting the petitioner an opportunity to substantiate their claim before the authorities by taking a lenient view. The order in original dated 17.02.2015 was remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration, with the petitioner allowed to file objections within 30 days. The respondent was directed to dispose of the objections within three months.Due to the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent was unable to proceed with the matter. The court noted that the previous order had already been set aside and disposed of. Consequently, the court decided to pass a similar order in the present writ petition. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the previous order, and the respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders within three months from the receipt of the court's order. The petitioner was permitted to file additional representation before the orders were passed, and the petitioner was required to appear in person. No costs were awarded in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
