Bharat Electricals Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Bharat Electricals vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 28, 1986

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/478057

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/478057
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Amitav Banerji ; and A.P. Misra, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 28, 1986
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ No. 298/1986
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs - Writs under Constitution--Filing of WRIT petition while appeal and stay application of assessee were pending before Collector (Appeals)--Petition not Maintainable--Constitution of India, Article 226-- Customs Act (52 of 1962), Section 129E. - - We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as we...

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bharat Electricals

Respondent

Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 1987(14)ECC130

Excerpt

customs - writs under constitution--filing of writ petition while appeal and stay application of assessee were pending before collector (appeals)--petition not maintainable--constitution of india, article 226-- customs act (52 of 1962), section 129e. - - we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel representing the union of india. 2. since the appeal and the stay application both are pending before the collector (appeals) we are not inclined to admit the petition for hearing in exercise of our powers under article 226 of the constitution, but would like to observe that it is a fit case in which the collector of customs (appeals) may dispose of the appeal and the stay application filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the presentation of a copy of this order......the receipt of the communication, failing which the amount would be recovered. on 13th february, 1984, the assistant collector also passed an order confirming that the petitioner was required to pay the aforesaid amount. it was also indicated that the petitioner could file an appeal against the said order. it appears from annexures 8 and 9 to the writ petition that the appeal was filed in the month of september, 1985, with the collector of customs (appeals) along with a stay application. section 129-e of the customs act requires the deposit of the amount of customs duty along with the memorandum of appeal and it also empowers the collector (appeals) to dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as he may deem fit to impose. the petitioner has also stated in this writ petition that the requisite certificate for the end use and consumption of the imported material was filed on the l5th february, 1984 before the collector of customs, bombay.2. since the appeal and the stay application both are pending before the collector (appeals) we are not inclined to admit the petition for hearing in exercise of our powers under article 226 of the constitution, but would like to observe that it is a fit case in which the collector of customs (appeals) may dispose of the appeal and the stay application filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the presentation of a copy of this order. we further direct that during a period of eight weeks from today the recovery of the amount from the petitioner shall remain stayed. with these observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.3. a copy of this order shall be furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within forty-eight hours.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel representing the Union of India. The petitioner is, under an order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, required to pay a sum of Rs. 2,04,500 as customs duty. It was mentioned in the order dated 24th November, 1983, that since the petitioner did not produce the required certificate for the end use and consumption of the imported material, he was required to pay the aforesaid amount within ten days of the receipt of the communication, failing which the amount would be recovered. On 13th February, 1984, the Assistant Collector also passed an order confirming that the petitioner was required to pay the aforesaid amount. It was also indicated that the petitioner could file an appeal against the said order. It appears from Annexures 8 and 9 to the writ petition that the appeal was filed in the month of September, 1985, with the Collector of Customs (Appeals) along with a stay application. Section 129-E of the Customs Act requires the deposit of the amount of customs duty along with the memorandum of appeal and it also empowers the Collector (Appeals) to dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as he may deem fit to impose. The petitioner has also stated in this writ petition that the requisite certificate for the end use and consumption of the imported material was filed on the l5th February, 1984 before the Collector of Customs, Bombay.

2. Since the appeal and the stay application both are pending before the Collector (Appeals) we are not inclined to admit the petition for hearing in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, but would like to observe that it is a fit case in which the Collector of Customs (Appeals) may dispose of the appeal and the stay application filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the presentation of a copy of this order. We further direct that during a period of eight weeks from today the recovery of the amount from the petitioner shall remain stayed. With these observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

3. A copy of this order shall be furnished to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within forty-eight hours.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1986 Same Parties Bharat Electricals vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Same Subject Customs Same Judge Amitav Banerji ; and A.P. Misra, JJ.

Customs