TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 847
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onfiscate 1100 Kgs of Ketamine Hydrochloride valued at Rs. 1,98,00,000/- under Section 113(d)(e)(h) and (i) of the Customs Act, 1962; to confiscate the Indian currency notes of Rs. 60,100/- and foreign currencies viz., US Dollars and Singapore Dollars of various denomination, both Indian and Foreign currencies totally valued at Rs. 1,47,850/- and Gold jewellery available at the residence of one S.P.Rajapandian totally weighing 331.18 grams and valued at Rs. 5,26,755/- under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962; imposing penalty of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakh Only) on the petitioner under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 and further imposing penalty on other three persons as well, as stated therein. 2. Mrs.Nalini Chidamb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der-in-original, passed by the adjudicating authority, a statutory appellate remedy is available before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and such Forum is undoubtedly, an effective alternative Forum where the petitioner is entitled to raise all the grounds by filing an appeal. The Tribunal, being the First Appellate Authority, in this case, will have to certainly go into the merits of the matter in detail and pass orders in accordance with law. Needless to state that as the appellate authority being the fact finding authority as well, the petitioner can approach such authority and agitate the matter by way of filing an appeal. Instead of doing so, the petitioner is not justified in approaching this Court and filing the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exercise has to be done. However, perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case laws relied on by the learned Senior Counsel would show that they are not similar to the one on hand, which in my considered view, is more grave and serious in nature and therefore, mere delay in passing the order of adjudication itself cannot be taken as a shelter by the writ petitioner to escape from the clutches of the adjudication. In this case, it is true that the show cause notice was issued on 01.02.2011 and the Adjudicating Authority called upon the petitioner and others for personal hearing on 10.09.2018. It is not in dispute that on receipt of such notice for personal hearing, the petitioner, without any protest appeared before the authority and s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he other hand, he participated and submitted himself to the adjudication process by filing his objection/explanation. Thereafter, the order of adjudication was passed without loss of further time. Therefore, I find that the present facts and circumstances would not fit into the facts and circumstances of the case laws relied on by the learned senior counsel for the purpose of deciding as to whether the impugned order of adjudication is liable to be quashed solely on the ground of delay in passing the order of adjudication. Needless to state that the question as to whether the order of adjudication needs to be interfered with solely on the reason of inordinate delay in passing such order, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case....