2019 (6) TMI 806

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enge the same order dated 9th May, 2017 of the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Mumbai. Therefore, at the request of the parties, this petition was taken up for consideration along with the two petitions already listed on today's board. 2. These three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge a common order dated 9th May, 2017 by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Preventive Mumbai. By the impugned order dated 9th May, 2017 the gold bars weighing 12 kags valued at Rs. 3.17 crores were confiscated under Section 111 (b)(d) and (l) of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act). Besides, penalty of Rs. 32 lakhs under Section 112 (a) and (b) of the Act was imposed upon each of the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r as per Section 2(a) "Adjudicating Authority" means any authority competent to pass any order or decision under this Act, but does not include the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963), Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) or Appellate Tribunal. 11.1. Monetary Limits :- Board has revised monetary limits for adjudication on 29.09.2016. The revised monetary limits and other instructions in relation to adjudication are as follows :   Sr. No. Central Excise Officer Monetary Limits of duty / tax / credit demand for Central Excise and Service Tax 1. Superintendent Not exceeding Rupees Ten Lakhs 2. Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Above Ten Lakhs but not exc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner also sought to make submissions on merits of the impugned order, including the non-granting of cross-examination. This to support his contention that the impugned order would be required to be interfered with by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. 7. We are of the view that there is an efficacious alternative remedy available from the impugned order dated 9th May, 2017 to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The petitioner's grievance with regard to the merits of the impugned order including non-granting of cross-examination would be considered by the Commissioner of (Appeals) and adjudicated upon. It does not warrant interference of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction.....