Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)
M/S.Sabin Logistics Pvt.Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs cites

Hlpl Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs (General) on 24 May, 2016

'6.The Court is unable to agree with the above submission. As already held by this Court in several orders including the recent order darted 24th May, 2016 in WP. (C) No.1734 of 2016 [HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. V. The Commissioner of Customs (General)] [2016 93380 E.L.T. 365 (Del.)] the time limit specified in Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR, 13 is sacrosanct i.e, the SCN had to be issued to the petitioner within ninety days from the date of the receipt of the offence report. It is plain that the SCN dated 17th June, 2014 was issued for the purpose of revocation of the CB license of the respondent and was not issued within 90 days of the date of receipt of the offence report which admitted in this case is 7 th October, 2013. The question of exclusion of the period during which the suspension of the license continued is not contemplated in Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR, 2013. If there are no grounds for revocation of license then obviously the suspension cannot be maintained. Consequently, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order of the CESTATE which calls for interference.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 10 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

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

226. But the existence of such remedy does not impinge upon the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with the matter itself if it is in a position to do so on the basis of the http://www.judis.nic.in 12 affidavits filed. 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

Commissioner Of Customs (Airport & ... vs Hlpl Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd on 26 May, 2023

22. The Delhi High in the case of Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. Atharva Global Logistics [2018 (338) E.L.T. 682] considered a similar plea by the Customs department as advanced in the present case. The plea was for exclusion of the period when the suspension of the license was rejected. The court negatived the same holding that there was no provision for such exclusion under Regulation 20. The relevant paragraph is as follows:
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - V Bakhru - Full Document
1