2019 (5) TMI 1744

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o. 53196/2018. 2. The grievance of the Revenue is that, they had filed written submissions on 13 December, 2018 after the conclusion of the hearing on 27 November, 2018 and their written submissions have not been considered and/or taken on record. The Revenue had filed their written submissions which is as follows; In addition to the findings of adjudicating authority and arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent on the day of hearing (28-11-2018), it is submitted that - (i)      The appellants during hearing have conceded that the classification decided by the adjudicating authority is appropriate and hence they accept the same. However, they vehemently argued that the goods are not prohibited and h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion would lose its value and importance. In other words, though subject goods are restricted for imports, non-compliance of pre-condition of import would effectively amount making goods as prohibited for import. In this connection, revenue relies upon judgements in case of Jagdeo Damodaran [2017 (352) E.L.T. 5 (Ke.)]. Further, it is established that in case of import of restricted/prohibited goods, redemption cannot be allowed as matter of right as held by Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of P. Sinnasamy [2016 (344) E.L.T. 1154 (Mad.)]. In view of above it is prayed that the impugned order may be upheld. The appeal being bereft of merit may kindly be dismissed." 3. Upon revisiting the written submissions of Revenue, we find that in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd allowed the release of goods on payment of duty within 7 days of receipt of a copy of this order. The Learned Counsel states that as so far the duty has not been assessed by the respondent authority. Thus, they are unable to pay the duty and seek release of the goods, in terms of the order of this Tribunal. 7. We find that non-communication of the duty payable, by the respondent authority, so as to enable the appellant to seek release of their goods, amounts to interference in the process of delivery of justice. However, in view of the ROM application filed by Revenue, we give one more opportunity to the respondent authority, to communicate the duty payable to the applicant/appellant, within the three days of receipt of the copy of....