M/s.TVC Skyshop Ltd v. Union ofIndia & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Customs Act, 1962 ss. 110(2), 124
Judgment
Mr.S.P.Kanuga for petitioner. Mr.M.I.Sethna, senior advocate with A.M.Sehna and S.M.Shah for respondentS. CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 4TH OCTOBER, 2006. DATED : 4TH OCTOBER, 2006. DATED : 4TH OCTOBER, 2006. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- Heard Mr.Kanuga for petitioner. Mr. Sethna, senior advocate appears for the respondents. Mr.Kanuga informs that after the matter was adjourned on the last date, an order has been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida on 20th September, 2006 extending the period of issuance of show cause notice in respect of the seizure of goods of the petitioner for a period of 6 months beyond 27th September, 2006 under section 110(2) read with 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. Mr.Sethna appearing for the respondents passed over a copy thereof. In view of this Mr.Kanuga seeks to withdraw this petition with liberty to take appropriate steps. Petition is allowed to be withdrawn. All contentions will be available to the parties in the event any such further proceedings being initiated. (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Customs Act, 1962 — ss. 110(2), 124.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 04 Oct 2006. The bench was GOKHALE, P DEVADHAR, H L GOKHALE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.