2019 (11) TMI 1782

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ading CTH 9503.20, whereas, according to the respondent, it is liable to be classified as 'hand held Brick Video Game', under CTH 9504.30 and CET 9504.90. In adopting this view the Assessing Authority follows the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai in the case of Sujatha Enterprises where vide order-in-Appeal No.C3/510/0/2001 (Sea), the authorities had upheld the classification of the very same type of goods under the heading CTH 9504.30 and CET 9504.90, at the rate of 16%. 3. The sequence of relevant dates and events is as follows: (i) The Petitioner filed a Bill of Entry bearing No.317740 dated 10.03.2001 for clearance of 45,000 pieces of the game in various models. (ii) Classification was sought under CTH 9503.20, and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y same issue has been held in favour of the assessee and the order of the CESTAT to such effect has been accepted by the Department. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that this being the law, it should be applicable across the Board and in rem and there cannot be a different interpretation in the case of the identical products in the hands of other assessees. 7. Mr.PramodKumar Chopda, learned Senior Standing Counsel would reiterate the enormous delay that had been occasioned at every stage in this proceeding pointing out that not only was the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) belated but the present Writ Petition filed in 2007, challenging order passed in 2001. He thus states that there is no merit in the Writ Petition and th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ision Bench was of the view that such law would apply uniformly to all similarly and identically placed assesses. Thus, notwithstanding that the assessments in that case had become final and though there were neither appeals filed or in some cases, appeals that had failed on one ground or the other, the Division Bench after a detailed exposition of law, expressed the view that the impugned recovery action would fail. The Bench noted that the objections raised by the petitioner therein, very similar to those before me, were fundamental and went to the root of the matter. The assessment was held to be without jurisdiction and framed in pursuance of a provision that had been found to be ultravires. A writ of mandamus was thus issued forbearing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, Civil Appeal 618/63 decided on18-10-65, this Court, by a majority, held that by reason of the fact that the relevant part of the charging section was held to be ultra-vires, Section 18A of the Act was not a bar for the maintainability of a suit claiming refund of the tax illegally collected. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has however contended that the High Court was in error in issuing a writ of mandamus when the proper remedy of the respondent was to file a suit. It is no doubt true that when there is an alternative remedy, the High Court will not normally entertain an application under Article 226, but where, as in the instant case, the High Court has chosen to exercise its jurisdiction to grant relief to the respondent, this....