Full Text
Translation output
#40
% 14.07.2011
Present: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Jam and Ms. Shikha Sapra, Advocates for the appellant.
Mr. Mukesh Anand with Mr. RCS Bhadoria, Mr. Shailesh
Tiwari, Advocates for the respondent.
+CUSAA 31/2011
*
This appeal is filed against order dated 11.03.2011 whereby the appellant is directed to make pre-deposit of 25% of the penalty
AQf imposed upon him as a condition precedent to hearing of the appeal filed by him before the Tribunal. Order dated 11.03.2011 is passed in number of appeals as all of these appeals are inter-connected. One of those persons namely Shri Jugal Kishore Dawer upon whom was also imposed similar conditions, had challenged that order and had filed
Writ Petition (C) No. 3306/2011 which was disposed of vide the order of this Court dated 16th May, 2011 directing said Mr. Jugal Kishore Dawar to move application for modification within 10 days with the note that the instant contention raised by Mr. Dawar that the Additional Director
General was not competent to issue.notice pending adjudication order and the submission was protected by the
% 14.07.2011
Present: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Jam and Ms. Shikha Sapra, Advocates for the appellant.
Mr. Mukesh Anand with Mr. RCS Bhadoria, Mr. Shailesh
Tiwari, Advocates for the respondent.
+CUSAA 31/2011
*
This appeal is filed against order dated 11.03.2011 whereby the appellant is directed to make pre-deposit of 25% of the penalty
AQf imposed upon him as a condition precedent to hearing of the appeal filed by him before the Tribunal. Order dated 11.03.2011 is passed in number of appeals as all of these appeals are inter-connected. One of those persons namely Shri Jugal Kishore Dawer upon whom was also imposed similar conditions, had challenged that order and had filed
Writ Petition (C) No. 3306/2011 which was disposed of vide the order of this Court dated 16th May, 2011 directing said Mr. Jugal Kishore Dawar to move application for modification within 10 days with the note that the instant contention raised by Mr. Dawar that the Additional Director
General was not competent to issue.notice pending adjudication order and the submission was protected by the
JUDGMENT
of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sayed Ali 2011 (265) ELT 17 (SC).
While taking note of the aforesaid argument, and while granting opportunity to Mr. Dawar to move an application for modification of the order, this court had made it clear that it had not expressed any
2011:DHC:12844-DB opinion on the merits of the case or expressed any view on the order impugned.
The appellant herein seeks similar order in this appeal. However, Mr. Anand informs that appellant has also moved similar application for modification of the order. No order of this court directing the appellant to move such an application is required. Once such an application is moved before the Tribunal and Tribunal is seized of the application, and more particularly when the Tribunal has to decide this legal issue in the application filed by Mr. Dawar, it goes without saying that same treatment would be given by the Tribunal to the application filed by the appellant as well.
With these observations the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the order be given dasti to counsel for the parties. lh^('
A SIKRI,J.
JULY 14, 2011 M.L. MEHTA, J.
Awanish
2011:DHC:12844-DB
While taking note of the aforesaid argument, and while granting opportunity to Mr. Dawar to move an application for modification of the order, this court had made it clear that it had not expressed any
2011:DHC:12844-DB opinion on the merits of the case or expressed any view on the order impugned.
The appellant herein seeks similar order in this appeal. However, Mr. Anand informs that appellant has also moved similar application for modification of the order. No order of this court directing the appellant to move such an application is required. Once such an application is moved before the Tribunal and Tribunal is seized of the application, and more particularly when the Tribunal has to decide this legal issue in the application filed by Mr. Dawar, it goes without saying that same treatment would be given by the Tribunal to the application filed by the appellant as well.
With these observations the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the order be given dasti to counsel for the parties. lh^('
A SIKRI,J.
JULY 14, 2011 M.L. MEHTA, J.
Awanish
2011:DHC:12844-DB