Asstt. Collr. of Customs Vs. Everett (India) Private Ltd.

Asstt. Collr. of Customs vs Everett (India) Private Ltd.

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Kolkata Decided Jan 24, 1995

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/880743

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/880743
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: C.J. and ;Ruma Pal, J.
Decided On: Jan 24, 1995
Case Number: Appeal No. 298 of 1984 and Matter No. 1561 of 1981
Subject: Customs
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Customs
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Asstt. Collr. of Customs

Advocate Pranatosh Mukherjee, Adv.

Respondent

Everett (India) Private Ltd.

Advocate A.K. Auddy, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: 1995(80)ELT788(Cal)

Excerpt

- c.j.1. this appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned single judge dated february 2,1983 setting aside the order of the assistant collector of customs, quashing the penalty of rs. 7,695/- imposed on the respondent and directing refund of the penalty, if paid, forthwith.2. the department has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned single judge on the ground that the notification no. 132, dated december 14,1973 did not apply to the present case inasmuch as it applies to the case of refund and as it was not a case of refund the learned single judge wrongly relied on that and passed the order impugned by means of this appeal.3. we find merits in the submission of the department and after reading the said notification and the other relevant papers we are of the view that the notification relied on could not be applied to the facts of the case. that being so, the imposition of penalty by the department, could not be set aside on this ground. we also quash the order of the learned single judge on the ground that a remedy was provided against the order of imposition of penalty of rs. 7,695/- by means of an appeal according to the statute. on that ground the writ petition should not have been entertained by the learned single judge.4. in the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. the order of the learned single judge is set aside.5. there will be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

C.J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated February 2,1983 setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, quashing the penalty of Rs. 7,695/- imposed on the respondent and directing refund of the penalty, if paid, forthwith.

2. The Department has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Notification No. 132, dated December 14,1973 did not apply to the present case inasmuch as it applies to the case of refund and as it was not a case of refund the learned Single Judge wrongly relied on that and passed the order impugned by means of this appeal.

3. We find merits in the submission of the Department and after reading the said Notification and the other relevant papers we are of the view that the Notification relied on could not be applied to the facts of the case. That being so, the imposition of penalty by the Department, could not be set aside on this ground. We also quash the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that a remedy was provided against the order of imposition of penalty of Rs. 7,695/- by means of an Appeal according to the Statute. On that ground the writ petition should not have been entertained by the learned Single Judge.

4. In the result, the Appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside.

5. There will be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 1995 Same Parties Asstt. Collr. of Customs vs Everett (India) Private Ltd. Same Subject Customs Same Judge C.J. and ;Ruma Pal, J.

Customs