2013 (11) TMI 495

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... sum of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-, respectively. 2. The respondent herein was detained having been found in possession of five gold biscuits on 25-11-1996. Gold weighing 582.8 grams was seized under mahazar, by an order, dated 9-12-1996. The gold biscuits were confiscated and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the respondent. An appeal was filed by him before the Commissioner of Police. The Commissioner of Police in and by the order, dated 28-8-1997, was pleased to allow the appeal, permitting the respondent to redeem the confiscated gold on payment of fine of Rs. 15,000/- apart from the penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. However, being aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner of Police, the department had preferred a revision. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2, dated 11-10-2006. The learned single Judge has passed an order directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 2,42,500/- after deducting the penalty and fine amount of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively. Challenging the same the present writ appeal has been filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that in law, the respondent is duty bound to pay the customs duty payable. While passing orders the first appellant had confirmed the findings of the original authority. The order was passed only as the concession and therefore, the respondent is bound to pay the customs duty, apart from the fine and penalty. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit....