Sabjan Vs. Collector of Customs

Sabjan vs Collector of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu Decided Apr 30, 1985

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/2174

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/2174
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Decided On: Apr 30, 1985
Subject: FERA

Case Summary

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

FERA

Key legal issue: FERA

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sabjan

Respondent

Collector of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (1987)(31)ELT727Tri(Chennai)

Excerpt

1. shri j. jeshtmal, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant states that he has filed copies of the impugned order and of the order-in-original with the memorandum of appeal and he had also filed an application for the stay of the recovery of the penalty amount and for waiving its pre-deposit. he states that the registry has turned down the stay application stating that it should be enclosed with copies of the order-in-original in triplicate. he states that copies of the order-in-original have already been filed with the memorandum of appeal and it will be a duplication to enclose them again with the stay application. so far as the filing of the additional copy of the order is concerned, we feel that the registry need not insist on the production of additional copies with the stay application and the copies already filed with the memorandum of appeal would be sufficient to be looked into while deciding the stay application. the stay application may therefore, be listed for hearing as early as possible.

Full Judgment

1. Shri J. Jeshtmal, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant states that he has filed copies of the impugned order and of the order-in-original with the memorandum of appeal and he had also filed an application for the stay of the recovery of the penalty amount and for waiving its pre-deposit. He states that the Registry has turned down the stay application stating that it should be enclosed with copies of the order-in-original in triplicate. He states that copies of the order-in-original have already been filed with the memorandum of appeal and it will be a duplication to enclose them again with the stay application. So far as the filing of the additional copy of the order is concerned, we feel that the Registry need not insist on the production of additional copies with the stay application and the copies already filed with the memorandum of appeal would be sufficient to be looked into while deciding the stay application. The stay application may therefore, be listed for hearing as early as possible.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tami... Same Parties Sabjan vs Collector of Customs Same Subject FERA