Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS versus M/S DOWELL CO., LTD.

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Dowell Co., Ltd. - Writ Petition No.1464 of 1998 [2005] RD-TN 53 (24 January 2005)



In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated: 24/01/2005

CORAM

The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K.MISRA

Writ Petition No.1464 of 1998

The Commissioner of Customs
(Appeals) Madras
Customs House,
Chennai-1 .. Petitioner

-vs-

1. M/s Dowell Co., Ltd.,
Bangalore-560 001

2. Customs Excise & Gold(Control)
Appellate Tribunal, West Block-II,
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110 066 .. Respondents


Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for the issue of a writ of Certiorari as stated therein.

For petitioner : Mr. S.Udayakumar

For 1st respondent : Mr. R.Sathish Parasaran

For 2nd respondent : M/s Ramasubramanian
Associates

:O R D E R



Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of Certiorari, call for the records of the Tribunal, the second respondent herein in C/2292/91-92 and to quash the order dated 29.7.1997 made thereon.

3. The writ petition is filed against the granting of exemption by the first respondent on the ground that the automatic bottle labeling machine imported for food product and therefore, exemption was permissible.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.27667 of 2000 dated 11.10.2001 wherein the Supreme Court has observed that Beer is not a food product and, therefore, no exem e granted in respect of import of various goods, including the automatic bottle lebeling machine. The aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to facts of the present case.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent however submitted that since alternative remedy was available for the petitioner, the petitioner should not have filed the writ petition.

6. Even though such a submission would be normally accepted, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said submission cannot be accepted, since the writ petition is of the year 1998 and the matter has remained pending for more than six years in this Court and it would be inappropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the alternative forum.

7. More over, since the issues involved in this writ petition are directly covered by the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, there is no necessity to drive the petitioner to exhaust the alternative remedy.

8. For the aforesaid reasons and following the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, the order passed by the second respondent is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs. Index : Yes

Internet: Yes

kvsg

To

1. M/s Dewell Co., Ltd.,

Bangalore-560 001

2. Customs Excise & Gold(Control)

Appellate Tribunal, West Block-II,

R.K.Puram,

New Delhi-110 066.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.