9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion whatsoever for treating the consumed goods to be goods warranting any extension application - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Special Civil Application No. 6002 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 22-8-2016 - S.R. BRAHMBHATT AND A.Y. KOGJE JJ. Mr. Mihir Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by M/s. Kunal Nanavati, TR Rustagi, Aashish Chauhan, Advocates for Nanavati Associates, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Chintan H Dave, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice S.R. Brahmbhatt) 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners by way of this petition have approached this Court with following prayers:- (a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the in-bond area and contended that the demand notice, on the face of it, would not indicate that the same was having any justification for calling upon the petitioners to show cause for the period which is mentioned thereunder. In fact, the Order-in-Original dated 18.02.2016 indicates that the period in question for which the demand is raised and duty is imposed spans from 1996 to 2012. Counsel submitted that in light of the provisions of Section 28 also, the same would not be ex facie permissible under the law. Apart therefrom, the respondents' untenable contentions as could be seen from the observations in the Order-in-Original as well as in the affidavit in reply in para-5.7 would indicate that when there is no dispute qua t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Customs Act itself and therefore, this Court may not examine this issue at this stage. 6. We are prima facie of the view that the matter deserves consideration as the learned Counsel for the petitioners is prima facie correct in contending that the demand for the period in question could not have been justified on the face of it in light of the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act. Even assuming for the sake of examining without holding that in a given case, the same is permissible then also, so far as the merit of the demand if concerned, unfortunately, prima facie, there appears to be no justification whatsoever for treating the consumed goods to be goods warranting any extension application. The averments made in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
