2016 (5) TMI 227

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udicating authority, by which, the Principal Commissioner of Customs, classified the goods imported by the petitioner as bituminous Coal under differt heading/sub-heading 2701-1200 of the schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. He consequently ordered confiscation of the goods but refused to impose redemption fine in lien of confiscation since the goods were not available for confiscation. He levied differential customs duty of Rs. 2.17 crores (rounded off) with interest. He imposed fine of Rs. 22 Lacs on the petitioner under Section 112 (A) of the Customs Act 1962. 2. This order, the petitioner has challenged in this petition almost exclusively on the ground that the Commissioner ought to have stayed the adjudication proceedings since....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nding before the Supreme Court which had bearing on the outcome of the pending proceedings before the Income Tax Tribunal, the Court was of the opinion that the Tribunal should have waited for the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court. Counsel submitted that these issues have been referred to the Larger Bench by the Madras Tribunal as also by the Ahmedabad Tribunal. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Oza for the department opposed the petition contending that in absence of any stay against further proceedings, the Commissioner was within his right to complete the adjudication. The petitioner has right of appeal before the Tribunal. The petitions may, therefore, be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat-II vs. Surendra Gulabchand Modi, the question of partition of the assessee himself was pending before the Supreme Court. In the opinion of the High Court the decision on the validity of the partition would have a direct bearing on the tax appeal which was pending before the Income Tax Tribunal. It was, in this background, the Court opined that the Tribunal should have awaited the outcome of the decision by the Supreme Court. 7. Accepting the petitioner's contention, that all proceedings of like nature must be kept pending till the issues are clarified finally, would lead to absurd consequences. As noted, the issues are referred to the Larger Benches of the Tribunal. In fact, in one such case, wher....