AHMEDABAD CESTAT BAR ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned advocate Shri Hitesh B.Patel, mentioned the matter in the morning for permission to circulate this matter urgently, as the order passed by the Respondent No.2 was without jurisdiction and likely to cause tremendous hardship and was wholly unjustified. As the urgency was pleaded, the Court granted permission to circulate the matter itself and thus the matter is listed after recess.

(2.) Heard learned Sr. counsel Shri Mihir Joshi with Shri Hitesh V.Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners invited Court's attention to the relevant facts which at this stage we do not propose to advert to, but the order at page 21 dated 24.04.2018 was urged to be wholly unwarranted and without jurisdiction and the counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Madras in case of Areva T & D India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Mumbai,2013 296 ELT 453 (Mad.), with special emphasis upon the observations of the Court in paragraph nos.21 to 26.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioners also invited Court's attention to the averments made in paragraph nos.10 and 11 of the petition and submitted that unfortunately the entire issue is unnecessarily blown up to such an extent that the said situation is created. There is no strike which would attract disapproval of judicial authorities.