9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eresting issues have been sought to be raised, particularly as to the propriety of the Central Board of Excise and Customs to issue a notification to deliberately negate the effect of a considered judgment of the Supreme Court. 2. The petitioner company brought in certain import consignments prior to 2013. The goods were permitted to be brought in upon assessment of the duty at the ports of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant petition, WP 24692(W) of 2015, was disposed of by an order of October 6, 2015. The order recorded that the main thrust of the previous petition was that the notice dated June 3, 2015 was without jurisdiction as it had not been issued by a proper officer. On such aspect of the matter, the Revenue relied on copies of notifications dated March 7, 2002 and July 6, 2011 by which certain officers in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that Paragraph 4 of the circular of December 11, 2014 is of some significance in the matter. 5. It must be appreciated that this is a subsequent writ petition which has been filed and not an application in the nature of review or modification of any previous order. It must also be noticed that it is not the petitioners' case that they were not aware of the circular of December 11, 2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receive the reply to the show cause notice was not decided by the order of October 6, 2015, the present petition has been filed for such purpose and such question may be appropriately dealt with herein. 7. Unfortunately for the petitioners, it is no longer open to the petitioners to challenge any aspect of the impugned show cause notice of June 3, 2015, at least prior to issuing a reply ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
