Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. CORAM : HON’BLE MR LISA GILL HON’BLE
Case Details
2025 in RA-CW-210-2025 in 2016 CWP-16204-2016 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CM CM-6541-2025 in/and RA-CW-210-2025 in RA CWP CWP-16204-2016 Decided on :- 12.05.2025 Decided on : Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal ....Applicant-Petitioner Union of India and Others Union of India and Others ....Respondents VERSUS CORAM : HON’BLE MR LISA GILL HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL SUDEEPTI SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. for the Sethi, Advocate for DRI. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for DRI. Mr. Rajesh Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2. -.- SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. CM-6541-2025 1. nstant application is for seeking condonation of delay of 76 days in Instant application is for seeking condonation of delay of 76 days in nstant application is for seeking condonation of delay of 76 days in nstant application is for seeking condonation of delay of 76 days in filing the review application in judgment dated 09.01.2025. filing the review application in judgment dated 09.01.2025. filing the review application in judgment dated 09.01.2025. 2. Delay of 76 days in filing the review application is condoned subject Delay of 76 days in filing the review application is condoned subject Delay of 76 days in filing the review application is condoned subject Delay of 76 days in filing the review application is condoned subject Lawyers Welfare Fund, Punjab and to cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited in the Lawyers Welfare Fund, Punjab and Lawyers Welfare Fund, Punjab and to cost of Rs.25,000/ Haryana High Court Bar Association. Haryana High Court Bar Association. 2025 RA-CW-210-2025 1. The instant review application under Order XLVII Ru The instant review application le 1 & 2 read under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 read filed for seeking review with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed for seeking review with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 dated 09.01.2025. of judgment dated 09.01.2025. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.26 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 in RA-CW-210-2025 in 2016 CWP-16204-2016 -2- 2. contends that he had arned counsel for the applicant-petitioner contends that he had arned counsel for the applicant Learned counsel for the applicant challenged show cause notice as well as order-in challenged show cause notice as well as order in the in-original dated 25.04.2016 in the writ petition was decided along with CWP- present writ petition. The present writ petition was decided along with CWP writ petition was decided along with CWP present writ petition. T 16779-2021 titled as ‘ Vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of titled as ‘M/s Gautam Spinners Vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligenc Intelligence (DRI), Ludhiana and others writ e (DRI), Ludhiana and others” and other connected writ petitions, vide judgment dated 09.01.2025 vide judgment dated 09.01.2025, wherein were , wherein only show cause notices were under challenge and 30 days time was granted to all the petitioners for filing reply. under challenge and 30 days time was granted to all the petitioners for filing reply under challenge and 30 days time was granted to all the petitioners for filing reply under challenge and 30 days time was granted to all the petitioners for filing reply And since in the present case original was already passed on 25.04.2016, the present case order-in-original was already passed on 25.04.2016, original was already passed on 25.04.2016, judgment dated therefore, the writ petition was to be disposed of in terms of judgment dated therefore, the writ petition was to be disposed of in terms of therefore, the writ petition was to be disposed of in terms of 09.01.2025 passed in CWP-12766-2023, titled as “ 09.01.2025 passed in K.K.Enterprises Vs. Union of 2023, titled as “K.K.Enterprises Vs. Union of India and Others” in which eight weeks time was India and Others” granted to the petitioners to in which eight weeks time was granted to the petitioners to prefer appropriate appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate prefer appropriate appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate prefer appropriate appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate prefer appropriate appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate He, therefore, prays that the present review application be Tribunal (CESTAT). He, therefore, prays that the present review application be He, therefore, prays that the present review application be Tribunal (CESTAT). allowed and judgment judgment dated 09.01.2025 passed in tled as dated 09.01.2025 passed in CWP-16204-2016 titled as to be Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others” be modified to be Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others “ Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others 2023, titled in terms of judgment dated 09.01.2025 passed in CWP-12766-2023, titled in terms of judgment dated 09.01.2025 passed in CWP decided in terms of judgment dated 09.01.2025 passed in CWP K.K.Enterprises Vs. Union of India and Others”. as “K.K.Enterprises Vs. Union of India and Others”. K.K.Enterprises Vs. Union of India and Others”. 3. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate accepts notice On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate accepts notice Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate accepts notice On the asking of the Court, DRI and Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate accepts notice on on behalf of respondent – DRI and Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate accepts notice on DRI and Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate accepts notice on on behalf of respondent that they have no objection if the review behalf of respondent No.2. They submit that they have no objection if the review that they have no objection if the review behalf of respondent No.2. application is allowed and judgment dated 09.01.2025 application is allowed and 2016 dated 09.01.2025 passed in CWP-16204-2016 Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others” be modified Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others titled as “Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others modified to 2023, in terms of judgment dated 09.01.2025 passed in CWP-12766-2023, in terms of judgment dated 09.01.2025 passed in CWP be decided in terms of judgment dated 09.01.2025 passed in CWP K.K.Enterprises Vs. Union of India and Others”. titled as “K.K.Enterprises Vs. Union of India and Others”. K.K.Enterprises Vs. Union of India and Others”. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.26 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 in RA-CW-210-2025 in 2016 CWP-16204-2016 -3- 3. In view of the same, judgment dated 09.01.2025 In view of the passed in CWP- dated 09.01.2025 passed in CWP 16204-2016 titled as titled as “Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others ” is Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others” is 12766- modified in terms of para 7 of judgment dated 09.01.2025 passed in CWP-12766 modified in terms of para 7 of judgment dated 09.01.2025 passed in CWP modified in terms of para 7 of judgment dated 09.01.2025 passed in CWP 2023, titled as “K.K.Enterprises Vs. Union of India and 2023, titled as “ which is K.K.Enterprises Vs. Union of India and Others”, which is reproduced as under :- reproduced as under “7. “7. Since in all the above referred to writ petitions Order- Since in all the above referred to writ petitions Order -in- Original passed by the adjudicating authority is challenged, the Original passed by the adjudicating authority is challenged, the Original passed by the adjudicating authority is challenged, the Original passed by the adjudicating authority is challenged, the
Decision
present writ petition is disposed of by granting eight weeks time to the present writ petition is disposed of by granting eight weeks time to the present writ petition is disposed of by granting eight weeks time to the present writ petition is disposed of by granting eight weeks time to the to prefer appropriate appeals before the Customs, Excise petitioners to prefer appropriate appeals before the Customs, Excise to prefer appropriate appeals before the Customs, Excise petitioners and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). It is made clear that and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). It is made clear that and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). It is made clear that and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). It is made clear that the period of eight weeks to prefer appeal before the CESTAT would the period of eight weeks to prefer appeal before the CESTAT would the period of eight weeks to prefer appeal before the CESTAT would the period of eight weeks to prefer appeal before the CESTAT would commence from the date of receipt of copy of this judgement.” commence from the date of receipt of copy of this judgement.” commence from the date of receipt of copy of this judgement.” 4. 7 and In view of the above, the review application is allowed and para 7 and In view of the above, the review application is allowed and para In view of the above, the review application is allowed and para 8 of judgment dated 09.01.2025 dated 09.01.2025 rendered in CWP “Rajesh CWP-16204-2016 titled as “Rajesh is ordered to be read as per para Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others” is ordered to be read as per para Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others 7 of 7 of 09.01.2025, passed judgment dated 09.01.2025, passed judgment dated in CWP-12766-2023 in titled as titled as as referred K.K.Enterprises Vs. Union of India and Others and connected cases, as referred K.K.Enterprises Vs. Union of India and Others K.K.Enterprises Vs. Union of India and Others to above. (LISA GILL LISA GILL) JUDGE May 12, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether : Yes Whether reportable Whether reportable (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.26 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document