Bombay High Court
Panama Petrochem Limited vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Import) on 18 September, 2018
Author: Riyaz I. Chagla
Bench: M.S.Sanklecha, Riyaz I. Chagla
S.R.JOSHI cuapp-22-23-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.22 OF 2018
Samir Akbarali Rayani .. Appellant
v/s.
The Commissioner of Customs
(Import) .. Respondent.
WITH
CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.23 OF 2018
Panama Petrochem Ltd., .. Appellant
v/s.
The Commissioner of Customs
(Import) .. Respondent.
Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr. Vijay Bhate i/b. PDS Legal, for the Appellant
in both the Appeals.
Mr. Karan Adik with Mr. Ram Ochani, for the Respondent in both the
Appeals.
CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA &
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER,2018. P.C:-
These two Appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act), challenge the common order dated 26 th June, 2016 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal).
1 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2018 00:37:56 :::
S.R.JOSHI cuapp-22-23-2018
2 Mr. Shah, learned Counsel in support of the two Appeals,
presses only the following identical question of law in the two Appeals, for our consideration:-
"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in passing the impugned order after five months twenty days from the date of hearing contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai [2009 (13) STR 11 (Bom)] and Emco Ltd., v/s. Union of India [2015 (319) ELT 28 (Bom.)]?
3 Appeal is admitted on the above substantial questions of law. At the request of the parties, the Appeal is taken up for final disposal at this stage.
4 We note that the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 27 th June, 2016, is a common order relating not only to M/s. Panama Petroleum Ltd., & its employee i.e. the two Appellants before us but also relates to Gandhar Oil Refinery (I) Ltd., Sah Petroleum Ltd. and M/s. Apar Industries Ltd., and their employees. The common impugned order dated 27th June, 2016 was challenged by Gandhar. Oil Refinery (I) Ltd., Sah Petroleum Ltd., and Apar Industries Ltd., being Customs Appeal (L) Nos.76 of 2016, 25 of 2016 and 22 of 2016 along with their employees before this Court. On September 26, 2016, the above appeals were allowed. The impugned order dated 27th June, 2016 was set aside and the appeal was restored to the Tribunal for fresh consideration by the order dated 26th September, 2016 in respect of Gandhar Oil Refinery (I) Ltd., & Others (supra).
5 It is an agreed position between the parties that for the
2 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2018 00:37:56 :::
S.R.JOSHI cuapp-22-23-2018
reasons stated in our order dated 26th September, 2016 in Appeals of Gandhar Oil Refinery (I) Ltd., & Others (supra) would equally apply to the present Appeals. Thus, following the decision of this Court in Gandhar Oil Refinery (I) Ltd., & Others (supra), we allow the Appeal and set aside the order dated 27th June, 2016. However, both the Appellant's appeals are restored to the Tribunal for fresh disposal, in accordance with law.
6 All contentions left open, to be urged before the Tribunal.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) 3 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2018 00:37:56 :::