Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › Clarion Power Corp vs. Commissioner Of Customs (CESTAT)

Clarion Power Corp vs. Commissioner Of Customs (CESTAT)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 17, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 29, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
Strictures passed against Advocate for making frivolous arguments without having the file and wasting the valuable time of the Court. Costs imposed

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, President and Shri. Madhu Mohan Damodhar Member (T)

CLARION POWER CORPORATION LTD.

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,TUTICORIN

Interim Order No. 3/2017, dated 17.01.2017 in Appeal No. C/126/2007-DB

Shri. Selvakumar, Advocate, for the Appellant
Shri. K. Veerbhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Respondent.

Order per Justice Dr. Satich Chandra, President

Shri. M. Selvakumar, learned counsel has made frivolous argument without having the file or and document in his hand. He has wasted the valuable time of the court. He also made a request for adjournment.

2. This as a fit care where the Bench may recommend to Tamilnadu Bar Council to take appropriate action against him. But, by keeping a lenient view in mind, we adjourn the case at the cost of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees on thousand only) which will deposited by the counsel toward Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within three days from today. On the next date of hearing, proof of deposit shall be submitted.

3. List the case for final hearing on 6.2.2017

(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)

Related Judgements

  1. Johnson & Johnson Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    At this time it came to the light that the AO has followed an innovative method of collecting taxes despite specific directions of the Bench. Therefore we had called the AO who had collected the revenue by flouting the directions … Johnson & Johnson Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT…
  2. DCIT vs. Prescon Builders Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) 

    At least the senior officer such as Commissioner of Income Tax should have carefully perused the record and CIT(A)’s order before granting authorisation. The very fact that the AO filed the appeals without even verifying the year, which was mentioned in the grounds of appeal, also indicates that the…
  3. DCIT vs. Sham Sunder Sharma (ITAT Chandigarh) 

    It is a clear case of showing disrespect to the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, contempt proceedings could have been initiated against the CIT (A) for blatantly disobeying the order of the Tribunal. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Agrawal Warehousing & Leasing Ltd. vs. CIT 257 ITR 235…
  4. Vijay V. Meghani vs. ACIT (MA By ICAI) (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The Income tax Appellate Tribunal, being a part of Government of India, should not shut its eyes when it is noticed that certain developments occurring in the Country may affect the Country as a whole, more particularly when the reputation of particular profession, from whom the Tribunal is getting…
  5. Mintu Sayermal Jain vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) 

    We find that the third party transactions were added in the hands of the assessee without without any basis or material and thus, the AO framed the assessment in a hypothetical way putting the assessee to enormous harassment and inconvenience. Similarly, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition without looking…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*