9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioners and arrived at a conclusion which if aggrieved, can be challenged by filing an appeal - Accordingly, all these writ petitions are hereby dismissed - 10002, 10001, 10004, 10005, 10006, 10164, OF 2010, 592 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2011 - J.P. DEVADHAR, MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. Mr. V. Sridharan with Prakash Shah i/b. PDS Legal for petitioner. Mr. M.I. Sethna, senior Advocate with A.M. Sethna for respondents. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) 1. All these writ petitions arise from the order of CESTAT dated 08/04/2010, whereby the CESTAT has upheld the order in original dated 16/12/2005 and dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners. By the order in original dated 16/12/2005, the assessing officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the present case, however, the Tribunal failed to consider the above binding decision of the Apex Court. Moreover, in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court after distinguishing its earlier decision in the case of Kiran Spinning Mills Ltd. V/s. Collector of Customs reported in A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3448 held that the charges for transportation of the goods by barges from the mother ship at Bombay Floating Light (BFL) to the jetty cannot be added to the assessable value of the imported goods for the purpose of levying customs duty. Totally disregarding the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the CESTAT by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kiran Spinning Mill (supra) has held that the post importation c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well established in law, that ordinarily writ petition ought not to be entertained where efficacious alternate remedy of appeal is provided in the statute itself. In the present case, are there any extra ordinary circumstances which warrant the invocation of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, is the question. 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the writ petition is not filed with a view to challenge the valuation aspect of the matter, but filed with a view to challenge the ex-facie errors committed by the Tribunal which can be rectified in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It is contended that the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. In that case, MMTC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n law so as to invoke writ jurisdiction. 7. Similarly, the contention of the petitioners that the Tribunal failed to consider the oral and written submissions made by the petitioners is also not entirely correct, because, the Tribunal has considered the basic contentions raised by the petitioners and arrived at a conclusion which if aggrieved, can be challenged by filing an appeal. The fact that the decision in the case of Kiran Spinning Mills (supra) has been distinguished in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. (supra), it does not mean that the ratio laid in the case of Kiran Spinning Mills (supra) is no longer a good law. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal chose to rely on the decision of the Apex Court in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
