9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 1385 - HC - CustomsConsideration of petitioner's refund claim - time limitation - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the order passed by the Tribunal, is dated 05.01.2016, signed by the Officer on 12.01.2016. Even going by the said date, limitation period of six months expires only in the middle of July, 2016. Secondly, according to the reply obtained by the petitioner, under the Right to Information Act, respondent/Department has received the order on 31.05.2016. If that be the case, then, they have got six months from the said date, to file an appeal against such order. Therefore, at this juncture, the prayer sought for by the petitioner, in these Writ Petitions cannot be granted. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Implementation of order passed by Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal 2. Consideration of petitioner's claim for refund Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed Writ Petitions seeking implementation of an order by the Tribunal dated 05.01.2016, which allowed the petitioner's Appeals for refund. The High Court noted that the order was signed by the Officer on 12.01.2016. The Court observed that the limitation period of six months would expire in the middle of July 2016. Additionally, as per information obtained under the Right to Information Act, the respondent/Customs Department received the order on 31.05.2016. The Court stated that the Department had six months from the date of receipt to file an appeal against the order. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioner's prayer in the Writ Petitions could not be granted at that juncture. However, the petitioner was given the liberty to renew their request after the expiry of the six-month period from 31.05.2016. The Court emphasized that the Department should diligently prosecute any appeal if they choose to do so, without delaying the matter. 2. The High Court disposed of the Writ Petitions without costs, highlighting the importance of the Department not delaying any potential appeal against the Tribunal's order. The judgment focused on the timeline of events, the rights of the petitioner to renew their request, and the Department's responsibility to act promptly if they decide to appeal the Tribunal's decision. The Court's decision provided clarity on the timeframe for further actions and emphasized the need for timely and diligent legal proceedings in such matters.
|
