CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2013) 03 GUJ CK 0014

Taj Haberdashery Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 21 March 2013 · Citation: (2014) 303 ELT 428

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sonia Gokani, J · Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J
CASE NUMBER
Special Civil Application No. 1727 of 2013
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 335 words

Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.—Counsel for the petitioner has confined this petition to the prayer for restoration of Appeal No. C/248/2006 before CESTAT on 14-2-2013. While issuing notice, we passed following order:

1.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had requested to the Tribunal to adjourn the tax appeal on the ground that DGFT had yet to take a final decision on the application by the petitioner for finalization of the status of its import license and fulfillment of export obligation. The Tribunal, however, by an order dated 29-11-2011, dismissed the appeal recording that the petitioner does not seem to be interested in prosecuting the appeal. He further submitted that the restoration application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 26-9-2012 recording that no one was present for the applicant though the Managing Director of the company was present before the Tribunal. He submitted that, if the tax appeal is restored, the petitioner shall proceed before the Tribunal on the date that the Tribunal may fix. He, however, clarified that the petitioner''s stand, that outcome of the petitioner''s application before the DGFT would have a direct bearing on such pending tax appeal, is not given up.

2.

Issue Notice returnable on 7-3-2013. Direct service permitted.

Having heard learned counsel, Mr. Dave for the petitioner and Mr. R.J. Oza for the respondents, we are of the opinion that the petitioner deserves one last opportunity to present its case before the Tribunal. We do notice that, in the past, the petitioner may not have persuaded the appeal with as much care as it should have been. However, by awarding some cost, the petitioner, in our opinion, should be given an opportunity to pursue the appeal on merits.

2.

In the result, without elaborating reasons, orders dated 29-11-2011 and 5-10-2012 are quashed. Above noted tax appeal is restored to the file of the Tribunal. The petitioner shall pay cost of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondents. Direct service permitted.