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>Judgment allows Plus Duty Free to continue operations, cancels Warehouse Licence, preserves rights for further proceedings.</h1> <h3>THE UNION OF INDIA, THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS, SUPERINTENDENT (BOND) AIR CUSTOMS, THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AIR CUSTOMS Versus M/s. PLUS MAX DUTY FREE PRIVATE LIMITED, THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, MR. SUMITH KUMAR, MR. VIVEK VASUDEVAN NAIR, STATION HOUSE OFFICER</h3> THE UNION OF INDIA, THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS, SUPERINTENDENT (BOND) AIR CUSTOMS, THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ... Issues:1. Setting aside of Exts.P18 and P19 and allowing M/s. Plus Duty Free (Pvt.) Limited to continue business operations.2. Cancellation of Special Warehouse Licence No.01/2017-18 issued to the 1st respondent.3. Appeal filed by the 1st respondent before the Tribunal and inability to get the Interlocutory Application listed due to vacant posts.4. Preservation of rights available to the 1st respondent against the order dated 05.04.2022.5. Entrusting further proceedings to the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Ernakulam.6. Clarification regarding observations made against the officer in the impugned judgment.7. Adjudication of questions and consequences before the Tribunal or Court independently.Analysis:1. The judgment under appeal set aside Exts.P18 and P19, allowing M/s. Plus Duty Free (Pvt.) Limited to continue business operations. The second appellant was directed to entrust the pending litigation against M/s. Plus Duty Free (Pvt.) Limited to another officer. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) subsequently canceled the Special Warehouse Licence issued to the 1st respondent, which was deemed appealable before the Tribunal.2. The 1st respondent had already filed an appeal before the Tribunal but faced challenges in getting the Interlocutory Application listed due to vacant posts. The Court preserved the rights of the 1st respondent against the order dated 05.04.2022, granting liberty to work out remedies within a week while keeping the order in abeyance.3. The Court appreciated the submission by Mr. Santhosh Mathew and clarified that further proceedings following the order dated 05.04.2022 would be taken up and concluded by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Ernakulam. Observations made in the impugned judgment against the officer were clarified to have no further effect on the individual officer.4. It was emphasized that all questions and consequences arising from the proceedings should be adjudicated independently before the Tribunal or Court, without influence from the impugned judgment. The Court did not express any view on the merits of the issues examined in the case, disposing of the Writ Appeal accordingly.
TaxTMI 