M\/s. CRI Pumps Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Additional Commissioner of Customs, The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals – I) And Union of India
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 317 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 1-10-2018
W.P.No.25417 of 2018 And W.M.P.Nos.29578 & 29579 of 2018
Central Excise
Mr. K. Ravichandrabaabu J.
\nFor the Petitioner : Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran
\nFor the Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel (IT)
\nORDER
\nMr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel (IT) takes notice for the respondents and by consent of parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
\n2. The petition<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 7. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n the same, on the face of it, is erroneous, so as to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. CRI Pumps Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Additional Commissioner of Customs, The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals – I) And Union of IndiaCentral Excise2018 (10) TMI 317 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMIMADRAS HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 1-10-2018W.P.No.25417 of 2018 And W.M.P.Nos.29578 & 29579 of 2018 … Continue reading “M\/s. CRI Pumps Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Additional Commissioner of Customs, The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals – I) And Union of India”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14315","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14315","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14315"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14315\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14315"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14315"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14315"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. There is no dispute to the fact that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was served with show cause notice, who in turn filed its reply to the same. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the Adjudicating Authority has considered the merits of the matter in detail and arrived at such conclusion. The contentions raised by the petitioner on merits of the matter, as well as the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, impugned in this writ petition, cannot be gone into at this stage by this Court, for giving any view on the same for the simple reason, that as against the said order, the petitioner is having a statutory appellate remedy before the Commissioner of Customs and Central<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, fairly submitted that the petitioner is willing to file an appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority, provided, such liberty is given to the petitioner. He also pointed out that the impugned order was not properly served on the petitioner and therefore, there can be some delay in filing such appeal, which this Court can consider and direct the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal and decide the same on merits.
\n8. Considering the fact that this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition on the sole reason that the petitioner has to avail the alternative r<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n