Telangana High Court
WP/25829/2006 of The India Cements Limited Chilamkur-516310, Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, on 27 December 2006
THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25829 OF 2006 Between: The India Cements Limited, Chilamkur – 516 310, Yerraguntla Mandal, Kadapa District, rep., by its Asst. General Manager (F & A ), Shri K. Madhusudana Rao
HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICEANDHON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.25829 OF2006
Between:
The India Cements Limited,Chilamkur – 516 310,Yerraguntla Mandal,Kadapa District, rep., by itsAsst. General Manager (F & A),Shri K. Madhusudana Rao …Petitioner
AND
Assistant Commissioner ofCustoms and Central Excise,Opp. District Court, Dwaraka Complex,Cuddapah Division, Cuddapahand another
...Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
: O R D E R :
Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. Anjali
Agarwal Counsel for the Respondents : Shri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, Assistant Solicitor General 27[th] December, 2006
Per G.S.SINGHVI, C.J.
This petition is directed against order dated 19-06-2006 passedby Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (South ZonalBench), Bangalore, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioneragainst order dated 13-12-2004 of the Commissioner of Customs andCentral Excise (Appeals), Guntur along with the application forcondonation of delay were dismissed.
On the last date of hearing i.e., 18-12-2006, Shri A. RajasekharReddy, learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection to themaintainability of the writ petition on the ground that an effectivealternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner underSection 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, ‘the 1944 Act’). Thereupon, Shri C.Kodanda Ram, learned counsel for the petitionermade a request for adjournment. His request was accepted and thecase was adjourned for today.
Ms.Anjali Agarwal appearing for Shri C.Kodanda Ram,.Counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that the statutory remedy ofappeal is available to the appellant against order dated 19-06-2006. She then submitted that the petitioner may be permitted towithdraw the writ petition with liberty to file appeal under Section 35-Gof the 1944 Act along with an application for condonation of delay.
Shri A. Rajasekhar Reddy says that he does not have anyobjection.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the prayer made. If the petitioner files appealwithin a period of two weeks from today, then the respondents shall notbe entitled to raise the objection of limitation.
As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition in the mannerindicated above, WPMP No. 33139 of 2006 filed by the petitioner forinterim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
December 27, 2006
G.S. SINGHVI, C.J.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.