The High Court also rejected the argument of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise that the petitioner having invoked s. 129 of the Customs Act, 1962, in the appeals preferred by it by praying for the dispensation of deposit, was precluded from proceeding under art.
The Collector, by letter dated January 9, 1964, rejected the representation and requested the petitioner to deposit the duty within 15 days of the receipt of the letter.
the duty demanded pending appeal.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 28, 1965 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. Nos.
p N 1SCI 7 a The petitioner having availed of the remedy under s. 12 of the Customs Act was debarred from challenging the impugned numberification, dated May 4, 1963.
R. Prem, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, for the appel lants in both the appeals .
T. Desai and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent in both the appeals .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala allowing two petitions filed by the respondent, M s. A. S. Bava, under art.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
If the petitioner had number applied for dispensation of the deposit of the duty, the appellants would have companytended that the petitions under art.
The High Court allowed the petitions on the ground that the numberification No.
The High Court, by this judgment, quashed two orders dated February 4, 1964, and directed the Collector of Customs, Central Excise, Cochin, to hear the appeals preferred by M s. A. S. Bava.
226 were number maintainable.
The petitioner filed appeals against these orders on or about July 4, 1963, to the Collector of Customs Central Excise.
By two orders of adjudication dated March 31, 1963, the Assistant Collector of Customs demanded the payment of duty under Rule 40 of the Central Excise and Salt Rules, 1944.
226 of the Constitution.
hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, is a firm of dealers in Tobacco.
226 of the Constitution.
2007 and 2008 of 1966.
The petitioner made a representation on October 3, 1963, requesting that it may number be required to deposit.
The relevant facts are as follows M s. A. S. Bava.
226 were number maintainable as the petitioner did number avail himself of the remedy of revision provided by s. 36 of the Excise Act.
The learned companynsel for the appellants has raised three points before us The petitions under art.
219 and 223 of 1964.
On the petitioner failing to deposit the amount, the appeals were dismissed on December 4, 1964.
226 and the petitions having been allowed, and the appellant having obtained special leave, the appeals are number before us.
Thereupon, as already stated, the petitioner filed two petitions under art.
