TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges an order dated 30th January, 2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. The impugned order dated 30th January, 2012, confirms a penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs under Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act). This Petition has been filed after the Petitioner had challenged the impugned order dated 30th January, 2012 before the Appellate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hallenge the impugned order by way of this Petition. 3. So far as first submission is concerned, Mr. Palkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that there is no laches on the part of the Petitioner. This as appeals were filed from the impugned order to Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The appeals before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was rejected on account of fai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar as alternate remedy is concerned, the Petitioner submits that though appeals were filed before the authorities under the Act, it was of no avail as the impugned order is without jurisdiction. This, for the reason that the impugned order dated 30th January, 2012 has imposed a penalty under Section 114(i) of the Act by issuing a notice, beyond the period of five years as provided under Section 28....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., seeking to reopen the assessment which was a subject matter of challenge before the Court and, the Apex Court held that the Revisional Authority would not be able to determine what is a reasonable period for exercising jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under the Punjab General Sales Tax. 7. In the present case, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 30th January, 2012, befor....