High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 02 MAD CK 0073

Mr. A. Abdul Rahman Prop. M/S. S. M. Enterprises New No. 51, Old No. 24 Hussain Maraikar Lane Moore Street, Mannady, Chennai-1 vs The Commissioner of Customs Customs House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1, The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Appraising Group 5A, Customs House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1 and The registrar Customs Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Shasthri Bhavan, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34

Madras High Court · Decided on 1 February 2012 · Citation: (2012) 281 ELT 653

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Jaichandren, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 28612 of 2011

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 291 words

M. Jaichandren

1.

At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that he has filed two appeals, in

Appeal Nos. C/213/11 andC/214/11, before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, against the

common order passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Chennai, dated 5.4.2011, made in AppealC.Cus.Nos. 153 and 154 of 2011.

Further, the petitioner had prayed for a direction, to the first respondent, to release the consignment covered under the bill of entry Nos. 594703

and 594704, dated 11.8.2010. However, as the Customs,Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, is not sitting,

at present, the petitioner has prayed that the appeals may be transferred to the co-ordinate Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax

Appellate Tribunal, sitting at Bangalore, State of Karnataka. Therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to make an application, before the third

respondent, requesting him to pass an administrative order transferring the matter from the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,

South Zonal Bench, Chennai, to its co-ordinate bench sitting at Bangalore, within a specified time, as per law. The learned counsel appearing for

the respondents has no objection for this Court passing such an order.

2.

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to make an application to the third respondent seeking such a relief. On receipt of the application, the

third respondent is to consider the same and pass appropriate orders there on, as expeditiously as possible, as per law, considering the difficulties

expressed by the petitioner, if there are no legal impediments for passing such an order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Connected M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.