2005 (5) TMI 381

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds have not been cleared within the validity period of the bonds. Therefore the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, issued an order dated 23-10-2000, demanding duty of Rs. 2,27,050/- under Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further interest as applicable was also demanded. A penalty of Rs. 12,000/- was imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals). Before the Commissioner (Appeals), it was argued that pending the appeal, the goods should not have been disposed of by the department. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants themselves had accepted duty liability under the provisions of the Customs Act. The fact that the goods were disposed of even when the appeal is pending wo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 322 (S.C.). Further he referred to the decision of Supreme Court in S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka - 1193 (SOL) Case No. 145, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed, "Justice is a virtue which transcends all carriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. The order of the Court should not be prejudicial to anyone. Rule of Stare decisis is adhered for consistency but it is not as inflexible in Administrative Law as in Public Law. Even the law bends before justice". He said in this case without the knowledge of the appellant the goods have been sold, much against the provisions of Section 72(2) of the Customs Act. As per Section 72(2), the notice to the owner before selling the goods is mandat....