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>Ship breakers challenge customs assessments, face differential duties. Tribunal grants stay, withdrawal leads to de novo consideration dispute. Advocate error analyzed, petitions dismissed.</h1> <h3>JAY BHARAT STEEL CO. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> JAY BHARAT STEEL CO. Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 20 (Guj.) Issues:1. Disputed assessment of bills of entry and differential duties by Customs authorities.2. Challenge to assessment orders by ship breakers before Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs.3. Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order directing deposit of 90% of demand and providing material evidence.4. Dismissal of appeals for non-deposit of ordered amount by Commissioner (Appeals).5. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal and stay granted on condition of deposit.6. Effect of judgment in another case on withdrawal of appeal by petitioner.7. Rejection of petitioner's request for de novo consideration by Customs authorities.8. Disposal of petition by Division Bench and subsequent approach to Appellate Tribunal.9. Miscellaneous application before Appellate Tribunal for recalling order.10. Submission regarding mistaken withdrawal of appeals by advocate.11. Application of B.S. Bajwa judgment and examination of withdrawal order by Appellate Tribunal.12. Analysis of Tribunal's power under CEGAT (Procedure) Rules for recalling orders.13. Consideration of petitioner's suffering due to advocate's fault and jurisdiction of the court.14. Comparison with limitation period for filing suits and rectification provisions under CEGAT Rules.15. Dismissal of all petitions by the court.The judgment pertains to a case involving disputed assessment of bills of entry and differential duties by Customs authorities. The ship breakers challenged the assessment orders before the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, leading to appeals and directions for deposit of 90% of the demand. The appeals were later dismissed for non-deposit, prompting the petitioners to approach the Appellate Tribunal, which granted a stay on deposit conditions. The withdrawal of appeal by the petitioner based on another case's judgment raised issues regarding de novo consideration by Customs authorities, which were subsequently rejected. The Division Bench's disposal of the petition and the petitioner's approach to the Appellate Tribunal via a miscellaneous application for recalling the withdrawal order were also discussed. The court examined the advocate's mistaken withdrawal of appeals and the applicability of the B.S. Bajwa judgment, concluding that the Tribunal's dismissal of applications was justified under CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. Despite acknowledging the petitioner's plight due to the advocate's error, the court emphasized the need for appropriate action against the advocate rather than court intervention, ultimately dismissing all petitions.
TaxTMI 