TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1150
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mr. M.V.J.K. Kumar, learned senior standing counsel for Customs, appearing for respondent Nos.3 & 4. On 30.06.2021, this Court had passed the following order: " Heard Mr. G. Shivadass, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Alekhya, learned counsel representing Mr. N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondents No.1 and 2, and Mr. Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Customs appearing for respondents No.3 and 4. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Regulation 5(2) & 6(1)(o) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 (for short, 'the Regulations'), as ultra vires the Custo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notices issued from time to time." The said order was passed on the basis of a showcause notice dated 05.02.2020 issued under Regulation 12(1) of the Regulations. The petitioner pleads that it was given a custodian order under Section 45(1) of the Act by an order dated 18.06.2003 of the Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam. Drawing attention of the Court to a letter dated 04.10.2004 of the Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam, it is contended by Mr. G. Shivadass, learned Senior Counsel, that the said letter states that the petitioner was not being asked for cost recovery charges and that by the said letter, the Commissioner had also sought the views of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, as was known then....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was required to be made at such rates and in the manner prescribed unless specifically exempted by an order of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance. 6(1)(o) of the Regulations is also on similar lines, Mr. G. Shivadass contends. It is further submitted by Mr. G. Shivadass that a single Bench of the composite High Court at Hyderabad had struck down Section 5(2) of the Regulations as ultra vires and an appeal is pending consideration. He has also submitted that the Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment, however, has taken a contrary view with regard to the Regulation in question. Mr. Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Customs, submits that against the impugned order, an appeal lies under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the amount of Rs. 15,88,36,561/- within a period of two months from today. Registry will list this case after two months. In the meantime, pleadings may be exchanged. Thereafter, the present I.A. came to be filed by the applicant/petitioner praying for modification of the interim passed by this Court on 30.06.2021. By the order dated 30.06.2021, it was provided that as an interim measure, the impugned Order-in-Original dated 01.03.2021 passed by respondent No.3-Principal Commissioner shall remain suspended subject to the petitioner, without prejudice to its rights and contentions as advanced, deposits before the Principal Commissioner 50% of the amount of Rs. 15,88,36,561/- within a period of two months from that d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... He further submits that the impugned Order-in-Original dated 01.03.2021 is appealable under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, "the 1962 Act") and in that connection, he has also drawn the attention of the Court to Section 129-E of the 1962 Act, which provides that against a decision or order referred to in clause (ii) of Section 129-A of the 1962 Act, appeal shall not be entertained unless the appellant had deposited 7.5% of the duty, in case where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty, where such penalty is in dispute, in pursuance of the decision or order. Mr. Chidambaram has submitted that present is not a case of duty and penalty, but it is a case of recovery of cost and, therefore, stricto sensu the p....