Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sunil Kumar Goel Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and ors.

Sunil Kumar Goel vs The Deputy Commissioner of Customs and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Aug 12, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1160997

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution

Key legal issue
Constitution

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunil Kumar Goel

Respondent

The Deputy Commissioner of Customs and ors.

Excerpt

.....appealed before the customs.excise and service tax appellate tribunal. the appeals were decided by remanding the case to the commissioner. the tribunal remarked “we make it clear that we have not expressed our opinion on any of the issues and all the issues are kept open”. the apprehension of the writ petitioner is that the effect of the order of remand would be reopening the case against mr.goel also. that is the reason why this writ application has been preferred. mr.saraf, learned advocate for the respondent submits that none of the appellants before the tribunal nor the revenue made any submission before the tribunal for reopening the case against mr.goel. this submission is of great assistance to the court and will bring relief to mr.goel. in those circumstances, i dispose of this writ application by declaring and ordering that the proceedings before the commissioner may proceed but the finding of the commissioner with regard to mr.goel in his order dated 28th november, 2007 will be taken to be final in the case remanded to the commissioner. the allegations against mr.goel cannot be reopened. as affidavits were not invited allegations, if any, contained in the writ application are deemed not to be admitted. certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (i. pkd. a.r.[c.r.].p.mukerji, j.)

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET WP NO.749 OF 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SUNIL KUMAR GOEL Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS.…………… BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 12th August, 2014.

Mr.S.K.Mehta…for petitioner.

Mr.S.B.Saraf, Md.T.M.Siddiqui…for Respondents.

The Court : This writ application can be disposed of at the court application stage because of the valuable assistance received from learned counsel on either side.

In a proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 relating to confiscation, penalty etc.one Mr.Sunil Kumar Goel was also issued a show cause notice.

Mr.Goel was a director of the company against which the principal allegations were made.

However, he was able to demonstrate before the Commissioner of Customs [Airport & Administration].before whom the adjudication took place, that he had no role to play in the matters complained of as he had relinquished directorship earlier.

This was accepted by the Commissioner.

By his order dated 28th November, 2007, Mr.Goel was exonerated.

Thereafter, all the three parties in the proceedings appealed before the CustoMs.Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

The appeals were decided by remanding the case to the Commissioner.

The tribunal remarked “we make it clear that we have not expressed our opinion on any of the issues and all the issues are kept open”.

The apprehension of the writ petitioner is that the effect of the order of remand would be reopening the case against Mr.Goel also.

That is the reason why this writ application has been preferred.

Mr.Saraf, learned advocate for the respondent submits that none of the appellants before the tribunal nor the Revenue made any submission before the tribunal for reopening the case against Mr.Goel.

This submission is of great assistance to the Court and will bring relief to Mr.Goel.

In those circumstances, I dispose of this writ application by declaring and ordering that the proceedings before the Commissioner may proceed but the finding of the Commissioner with regard to Mr.Goel in his order dated 28th November, 2007 will be taken to be final in the case remanded to the Commissioner.

The allegations against Mr.Goel cannot be reopened.

As affidavits were not invited allegations, if any, contained in the writ application are deemed not to be admitted.

Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(I.

Pkd.

A.R.[C.R.].P.MUKERJI, J.)

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial