9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve rather considered for awarding appropriate cost also had there been some intimation to the authority deciding subsequent proceedings. In the instant case, as there was no intimation to the subsequent authority, we are not inclined to award any cost but we will surely would like to record that appropriate communication and inter-departmental exchanges would have avoided - Petition allowed. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13810 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 3-12-2018 - MR S. R. BRAHMBHATT AND MR UMESH A. TRIVEDI, JJ. For The Etitioner (s) : RAHUL L GAJERA (9399) For The Respondent (s) : DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) (11), KSHITIJ M AMIN (7572), MR DEVANG VYAS (2794) AND MR MITESH R AMIN (2876) ORAL ORDER ( PER : HON ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received show-cause-notice dated 28.03.2008, the same is placed on record. On account of the notification dated 19.12.2008 the said show-cause-notice was required to be adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva, Tal Uran, District Raigad, Maharashtra. The said authority undertook the adjudication and rendered its final decision in the form of order-in-original on 30.6.2014 and issued on 3.7.2014. This order-in-original was assailed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (for short CESTAT ) by way of appeals being Appeal No. C/89427/14-MUM and C/89435/14-MUM and the same are pending. 6. During the pendency of the said appeal, a notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d authority did record the new address of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent ought not to have issued the order at all as even the final figure after corrigendum issued would in fact the same and is matching, therefore the entire exercise was unwarranted and uncalled for. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner could have challenged this order as per the statutory provision of appeal and this court may not exercise its extra-ordinary discretion as the alternative remedy is not availed. However, learned counsel Mr. Mitesh Amin appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 could not justify either re-hearing or rendering the adjudication upon the matter of show-c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
