Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)Section 28 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Article 265 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Customs Act, 1962
Section 112 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
C.C., Kandla vs Varsana Ispat Ltd on 14 February, 2018
Commissioner of Customs & Service Tax, Vishakapatnam [2018 (361)
ELT 939 (Tri-Hyd)], in CESC Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Port),
Kolkata [2018 (360) ELT 1047 (Tri-Kolkata)], in Commissioner of
Customs, Kandla v. Varasana Ispat Ltd [2019 (368) ELT 112 (Tri-Ahmd)]
and in Maheshwari Brothers v. Jairaj Ispat Ltd v. Commissioner of
Customs, Vishakapatnam [2015 (1) TMI 208 - CESTAT BANGALORE],
were not made known while arguing the dispute now held up as precedent
C/89340/2014
4
by the appellant herein.
(1) M/S. Cesc Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Port), ... on 1 September, 2017
Commissioner of Customs & Service Tax, Vishakapatnam [2018 (361)
ELT 939 (Tri-Hyd)], in CESC Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Port),
Kolkata [2018 (360) ELT 1047 (Tri-Kolkata)], in Commissioner of
Customs, Kandla v. Varasana Ispat Ltd [2019 (368) ELT 112 (Tri-Ahmd)]
and in Maheshwari Brothers v. Jairaj Ispat Ltd v. Commissioner of
Customs, Vishakapatnam [2015 (1) TMI 208 - CESTAT BANGALORE],
were not made known while arguing the dispute now held up as precedent
C/89340/2014
4
by the appellant herein.
Dy. Commissioner Of ... vs M/S. Knowledge Infrastructure Systems ... on 8 February, 2016
C/89340/2014
5
in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai v. Reliance
Infrastructure Ltd while directing2 notice to be issued.
National Aluminum Company Ltd ... vs Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) on 16 February, 2018
5. Learned Counsel intimated that the Tribunal, in re Tamil Nadu
Generation & Distribution Corp Ltd, had merely disposed off the appeal
without rendering a decision and was followed similarly in re National
Aluminium Co Ltd which, upon being carried in appeal, was remanded
both to the Tribunal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court thus
'3. Taking note of the said fact, the Customs, Excise and Service
Tax Appellate Tribunal had disposed of the appeals, without
deciding the question either way, in view of the pendency of the
matter in this Court and giving liberty to the respondent herein
to come again after having verdict from the Supreme Court. We
do not understand this manner of disposing of the appeal. The
Tribunal should have kept the appeal pending till the decision of
Civil Appeal No. 9725 of 2014 or decide the matter on its own on
merits.'
in National Aluminium Co Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
[2019 (23) GSTL 161 (SC)]. It was also pointed out that, in appeal of
Revenue against the decision in their own dispute, at the stage of
admission, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of one of the grounds
alluded therein and responded thus
'We do not approve of such kind of aspersions being cast on the
CESTAT or any other Tribunal/Court. Merely because the matter
is pending before this Court as long as there is no direction not
to hear similar cases before other Tribunals/ courts passed by
this Court, the pendency of a matter before this Court would not
come in the way of other Tribunals/Courts deciding similar case.'
1