M.J. Doshi Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

M.J. Doshi vs Commissioner of Customs,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 11, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/40762

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/40762
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: K Kumar
Decided On: Nov 11, 2005
Subject: Contract

Case Summary

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

Contract

Key legal issue: Contract

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.J. Doshi

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs,

Excerpt

2. the ld. counsel for the appellant submits that there is a delay of 1 month and 20 days in filing the appeal before this tribunal. the reasons for delay are that there were heavy rains and floods in the month of july and august in mumbai. besides, he also submits that the letter dated 17.03.2005 could not reach the adjudicating commissioner in time as the same was received by him on 20.05.2005 and by that time the impugned order has already been passed on 8.4.2005 which was issued by the office of the commissioner on 29.04.2005 and received by the appellants on 5.5.2005. the appeal should have been filed by 06.08.2005, hence the delay. he refers to the letter dated 17.3.2005 relaxing the policy with regard to waiver of the condition of homologation for import of bmw 7351 rhd car imported by the appellant.he submits that if the certificate had been taken into consideration by the commissioner, then the impugned order would not have been passed.3. after hearing both sides and perusal of the records. i condone the delay in filing the appeal before this tribunal. the appeal is taken for final disposal at the stay stage itself. i remand the appeal to the commissioner for fresh adjudication after taking into account the certificate dated 17.3.2005.

Full Judgment

2. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is a delay of 1 month and 20 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The reasons for delay are that there were heavy rains and floods in the month of July and August in Mumbai. Besides, he also submits that the letter dated 17.03.2005 could not reach the adjudicating Commissioner in time as the same was received by him on 20.05.2005 and by that time the impugned order has already been passed on 8.4.2005 which was issued by the office of the Commissioner on 29.04.2005 and received by the appellants on 5.5.2005. The appeal should have been filed by 06.08.2005, hence the delay. He refers to the letter dated 17.3.2005 relaxing the policy with regard to waiver of the condition of Homologation for import of BMW 7351 RHD car imported by the appellant.

He submits that if the certificate had been taken into consideration by the Commissioner, then the impugned order would not have been passed.

3. After hearing both sides and perusal of the records. I condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The appeal is taken for final disposal at the stay stage itself. I remand the appeal to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication after taking into account the certificate dated 17.3.2005.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties M.J. Doshi vs Commissioner of Customs, Same Subject Contract Same Judge K Kumar