9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1166 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of petition - whether the petitioner can prosecute the writ petitions when the order has already been under challenge before the CESTAT? - Held that - I am of the view that instead of entertaining the present writ petitions, it would be suffice to direct the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal, filed by the petitioner within a time frame - I direct the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai to entertain the application, to be filed by the petitioner, for transferring of the appeal in No. C/40723/15-DB to some other Bench, where, Presiding Officers are available, and also direct the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai to dispose of the said appeal within a period of eight weeks - petition disposed off - matter on remand.
Issues:
1. Writ of Certiorari to challenge order-in-original No.33738/2015 dated 29.12.2014 2. Writ of Mandamus to prevent respondent from taking action on imports under EPCG authorization Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2971 of 2015 seeking a Writ of Certiorari to challenge the order-in-original No.33738/2015 dated 29.12.2014 passed by the respondent. During the hearing, it was highlighted that the petitioner had also filed an appeal in C/40723/2015-DB before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) against the same order. The court noted that since the order was already under challenge before CESTAT, the petitioner could not pursue the writ petition. Therefore, the court decided not to entertain the writ petition and directed CESTAT to expedite the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. Writ Petition No. 2972 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus to restrain the respondent from taking any action regarding imports under EPCG authorization Nos.0330029636 dated 01.06.11 and 0330029874 dated 30.01.11 until the completion of the respective export obligation periods. The petitioner requested that the appeal be transferred to a different Bench due to the unavailability of a Division Bench at CESTAT. Both parties agreed to this request, and the court directed CESTAT to entertain the application for transferring the appeal to another Bench where Presiding Officers are available. The court further instructed CESTAT to dispose of the appeal within eight weeks from the date of the court's order, allowing the petitioner to present all contentions before the Tribunal. As a result, both writ petitions were disposed of without any costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
|
