9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 616 - HC - CustomsMaintainability - territorial jurisdiction of the court to entertain the writ petition - reliance placed on the decision of the case Zeenath International Supplies V. Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam, 2014 (3) TMI 676 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Held that - when there is a conclusion that the litigation amounts to forum shopping, the Court would refuse to exercise discretion to entertain a writ petition - writ petition not maintainable and dismissed - liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the CESTAT, Bangalore and the CESTAT shall exclude the period from 23.06.2004, till the receipt of the certified copy of this order, while computing limitation in the appeal to be filed by the petitioner - decided against petitioner.
Issues:
Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition challenging an Order in Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin. Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of Madras revolves around the jurisdictional aspect of entertaining a writ petition challenging an Order in Appeal by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin. The learned Standing Counsel for the Customs Department raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The counsel cited a Division Bench decision in Zeenath International Supplies V. Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam, emphasizing the issue of territorial jurisdiction. The Division Bench decision highlighted the importance of jurisdiction in such cases and concluded that the appeal was not maintainable before the High Court. The petitioner, through their counsel, acknowledged that the Division Bench judgment was unfavorable and agreed that the writ petition was not maintainable before the High Court. Consequently, the learned counsel requested liberty for the petitioner to approach the CESTAT, Bangalore. The High Court, considering the arguments presented, dismissed the Writ Petition on grounds of non-maintainability due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. However, the Court granted the petitioner the liberty to pursue the matter before the CESTAT, Bangalore. It was further directed that the period from 23.06.2004, until the receipt of the certified copy of the order, should be excluded when computing the limitation for filing an appeal before the CESTAT. The judgment concluded by stating that no costs were to be incurred, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was also dismissed. In essence, the judgment underscores the critical importance of territorial jurisdiction in legal proceedings and highlights the need for parties to approach the appropriate forum for seeking redressal. The decision provides clarity on the course of action for the petitioner by granting liberty to pursue the matter before the appropriate appellate authority while ensuring fairness in the computation of the appeal period.
|
