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.

Commissioner of Customs Vs. U. Prints

Commissioner of Customs vs U. Prints

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 10, 2000
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/18631

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
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs

Respondent

U. Prints

Legal References

Reported In
(2000)(120)ELT264TriDel

Excerpt

1. this application filed by the commissioner of customs prays for grant of time for implementing final order nos. 1574-75/99-a dated 5-11-1999 passed by this tribunal in the captioned appeals.2. we have perused the final order (supra). the said order was passed confirming the orders of adjudication passed by the commissioner, but reducing the redemption fine and penalty to rs. 1.2 lacs and rs. 1 lac respectively. no time limit was stipulated in the order of the tribunal. the present application has been filed on the ground that the department's appeals for enhancing fine and penalty vis-a-vis the orders of adjudication are pending before the south regional bench of the tribunal and on the further ground that their application for reference in the matter is pending before the high court of delhi. it is also stated that they are intending to file a stay application also before the high court against the final order ibid.3. we have heard learned sdr, shri p.k. jain for the applicant and learned advocate, shri k.k. anand for the respondents. learned dr has reit-erarted the grounds of the application and has submitted that, for the reasons stated in the application, it would be in the interest of revenue to grant further time for implementing the final order ibid. we are not impressed with this submission, nor do we find any reason to grant any further time for implementation of the final order ibid, since, in our view, more than six months have elapsed since passing of the final order and such period is a reasonable period for the purpose at hand. nevertheless, since no time has been stipulated in the final order ibid, the applicant shall, we hope, take into account our observations stated hereinbefore and, having due regard thereto, implement the final order of the tribunal without any further delay.the application is rejected with these observations.

Full Judgment

1. This application filed by the Commissioner of Customs prays for grant of time for implementing final order Nos. 1574-75/99-A dated 5-11-1999 passed by this Tribunal in the captioned appeals.

2. We have perused the final order (supra). The said order was passed confirming the orders of adjudication passed by the Commissioner, but reducing the redemption fine and penalty to Rs. 1.2 lacs and Rs. 1 lac respectively. No time limit was stipulated in the order of the Tribunal. The present application has been filed on the ground that the Department's appeals for enhancing fine and penalty vis-a-vis the orders of adjudication are pending before the South Regional Bench of the Tribunal and on the further ground that their application for reference in the matter is pending before the High Court of Delhi. It is also stated that they are intending to file a stay application also before the High Court against the final order ibid.

3. We have heard learned SDR, Shri P.K. Jain for the applicant and learned Advocate, Shri K.K. Anand for the respondents. Learned DR has reit-erarted the grounds of the application and has submitted that, for the reasons stated in the application, it would be in the interest of Revenue to grant further time for implementing the final order ibid. We are not impressed with this submission, nor do we find any reason to grant any further time for implementation of the final order ibid, since, in our view, more than six months have elapsed since passing of the final order and such period is a reasonable period for the purpose at hand. Nevertheless, since no time has been stipulated in the final order ibid, the applicant shall, we hope, take into account our observations stated hereinbefore and, having due regard thereto, implement the final order of the Tribunal without any further delay.

The application is rejected with these observations.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial