Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
The Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S.Mks Shipping Agencies Pvt.Ltd on 24 October, 2016 cites

Commissioner Of Customs (Sea) vs Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate ... on 24 April, 2009

In the case of the Commissioner of Customs Vs The Customs Excise and Service Tax, reported in 2014-3-L.W.632, when the similar issue came up for consideration as to whether the order of suspension passed under Regulation 22 of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations 2004, the time limit is to be complied with or not?, the Division Bench of this Court in which I am one of the parties (M.Sathyanarayanan,J) has considered the scope of Regulation 20(1) and 22(1). In paragraph No.25, we have observed that as per the notification and instruction dated 20.01.2014, the time limit has been prescribed in respect of the procedure contemplated under Regulation 22 and as per sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 22, the Commissioner of Customs shall issue in writing to the Customs House Agent within ninety days from the date of receipt of offence report, stating that the grounds on which it is proposed to suspend or revoke the license and require the said CHA to submit within 30 days..... In paragraph No.26 of the order, this Court stated the Government of India, Ministry of Finance(Department of Revenue), Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi has issued issued Circular No.9/2010- Cus., dated 08.04.2010 in F.No.502/2008-Cus VI, wherein clarification on procedures in issuance of licence to CHAs have been issued and it is relevant to extract the following paragraphs:
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Customs, Calcutta Etc vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 17 February, 2004

7. This Court in the above cited decision has also taken note of the decision reported in [(1996) 10 SCC 387)], Ranadey Mictronutrients Vs. Collector of Central Excise, wherein, it has been held that the Board Circular is binding on the Revenue and there cannot be any challenge on the ground of inconsistency with the statutory provision and also taken note of yet another decision reported in [(2014) 3 SCC 488, Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta and Others Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and another, which also laid down the similar proposition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 486 - P V Reddi - Full Document

Chander Bhan Gosain vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 5 April, 1963

If however a party has already availed of the alternative remedy while invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 it would not be appropriate for the Court to entertain the writ petition. The Rule is based on public policy but the motivating factor is the existence of a parallel jurisdiction in another Court. But this Court has also held in Chandra Bhan Gosain Bhan V. State of Orissa that even when an alternative remedy has been availed of by a party but not pursued that the party could prosecute proceedings under Article 226 for the same relief. This Court has also held that that when a party has already moved the High Court under Article 226 and failed to obtain relief and then moved an application under Article 32 before this Court for the same relief, normally the Court will not entertain the application under Article 32. But where in the parallel jurisdiction, the order is not a speaking one or the matter has been disposed of on some other ground, this Court has, in a suitable case, entertained the application under Article 32. Instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the alternative remedy had been availed of, the Court may call upon the party to elect whether it will proceed with the alternative remedy or with the application under Article 226 Therefore the fact that a suit had already been filed by the appellant was not such a fact the suppression of which could have affected the final disposal of the writ petition on merits.?
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 59 - A K Sarkar - Full Document
1