9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner has taken different avenues to challenge the Bill of Entry dated 01.05.2014. First he filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals-II, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Thereafter, this Court also confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals-II in the writ petition. Now, after the dismissal of the said writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the Bill of Entry dated 1.5.2014 on the file of the 1st respondent and to quash the same and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to assess the payment of duty as per the Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner Corporation preferred an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner before the Commissioner of Appeals-II, Customs Department. 3. Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Appeals was dismissed on the ground of limitation, there will not be merger of the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enge the Bill of Entry dated 01.05.2014. First he filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals-II, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Thereafter, this Court also confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals-II in the writ petition. Now, after the dismissal of the said writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the original Bill of Entry dated 01.05.2014. Hence, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
