9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r mandatory? - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in the case of INDAIR CARRIER PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) [ 2016 (5) TMI 775 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where This Court has consistently emphasised the mandatory nature of the aforementioned time limits in several of its decisions. There shall be an order of interim stay for four(4) weeks - List for filing of counter on 02.04.2019. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the petitioner, there has been no move to call upon the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer till date and the period of ninety(90) days as stipulated by Regulation 17(5) has expired on 05.02.2019. According to him, the aforesaid period of ninety days is mandatory and not directory. He relies on a decision of this Court in W.P.No.26923 26934 dated 22.11.2018 in this regard. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or of Central Excise [1996 (87) E.L.T.19 (S.C.)]; Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd [2004(165) E.L.T.257 (S.C.)]), it appears that the issue, as of now, is being decided in favour of the petitioner. 6. In light of the above, there shall be an order of interim stay for four(4) weeks. 7. Liberty is granted to the parties to bring to the notice of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
