TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (1) TMI 621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der, penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on the applicants. They paid the penalty and did not file any appeal. It was argued that after three years when a criminal complaint was filed before the Magistrate at Jaipur, the applicants have filed this appeal in view of the position that if the applicants succeed in this appeal then the criminal prosecution would not survive. 3. It was argued that the Supreme Court in the case of State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO, reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 337, in para 10 of the decision, has observed that "the proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of the extraordinary restriction vested in the Court. What counts is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the cause an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations Pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay." In para 13 of the said judgment, reliance was placed on the following:- "If the explanation given does not smack mala fides or is not shown to have been put forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor." Reliance was also placed on Bombay High Court decision in the case of WWI Cranes Limited v. Krishna Murthy, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that decision are reproduced below :- "5. It is not disputed that Section 111(m) of the Act has been amended in 1973 by Act No.36 of 1973 but this amendment will not be applicable to the present case. Section 111(m) as it stood before the amendment reads as under:- 'Any dutiable or prohibited goods which do not correspond in any material particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under Section 77 in respect; thereof.' And after the amendment Act 1973 this provision now reads like 'any goods which do not correspond ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 57 without warehousing the same. *    *    *    *    *    *    *    * (4) The importer while presenting a bill of entry shall at the foot thereof make and subscribe to a declaration as to the truth of the contents of such bill of entry and shall, in support of such declaration, produce to the proper officer the invoice, if any, relating to the imported goods. *    *    *    *    *    *    *    * It is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eumatic Company, reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.), the Supreme Court has observed that "we do not think it is, even while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution. The power conferred by Article 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the Rule of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with law. It cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law. In particular, the Customs authorities, who are the creatures of the Customs Act, cannot be directed to ignore or act contrary to Section 27, whether before or after amendment." Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vishnubhai P. Patel v. CC, Ahmedabad, reported in 2004....