TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner, Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the material on record. 2. The instant Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief : - "In the aforementioned reasons, it is just and necessary and the petitioner prays that this H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Customs Act, 1962 is concerned, he does not press that relief and he confines the relief so far as the challenge to the Notification No.36 of 2021 dated 03.08.2001 and Notification No.40 of 2001 dated 28.08.2001. 4. Further, in the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notification dated 03.08.2001 was subjected to challenge by the petitioner thems....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e been levied on its invoice value, and on the tariff value prescribed subsequently in Notification No.36 of 2001 dated 03.08.2001. Both the Writ Petitions are allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these Writ Petitions, are closed." 5. From the aforesaid given factual matrix, what is culled out is that when the notification was subj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any reasons to interfere with the said notification. However, since we are endorse the view of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19303 and W.P.No.20536 and 2001, it stands clarified that the effect of the said notification would be only from 06.08.2001 onwards but not from 03.08.2001. 7. Since the Notification No.40 of 2001 also is identically same, the said notification also is held to ....