2023 (3) TMI 185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....called upon to pay the differential duty of Rs.2,22,427/- in respect of the portable emergency lamp, Model PRL 786, imported by the petitioner in the year 2002. 2.The petitioner has challenged the impugned order in original on the following grounds: a)Despite steps having been taken by the respondents to recover the differential duty in the year 2006, the respondents, after receipt of the reply from the petitioner in the year 2006, did not proceed further with regard to the differential duty, which is claimed under the impugned order in original. b)The recovery notice and the attachment letter were issued by the second respondent only on 14.02.2020 and immediately after coming to know the same, the petitioner has approached this Court ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... barred and is an attempt to only further delay the process of recovery. They have reiterated that the petitioner is liable to pay the differential duty as claimed in the impugned order in original. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition and also relied upon the decisions referred to supra in support of the petitioner's contention. 5.Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 reiterated the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 before this Court and would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable. 6.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends before this Court that the petitioner wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ven due consideration under the impugned Order in Original and therefore, the impugned Order in Original has to be quashed for non application of mind to the aforementioned decisions as well as the order dated 30.07.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in a batch of identical cases. 7.Admittedly, the impugned Order in Original is dated 11.05.2004. The petitioner has filed this writ petition only in the year 2020. Under the impugned Order in Original, the petitioner has been directed to pay the differential duty of Rs.2,22,427/-. Since the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly, this Court is of the considered view that after a lapse of almost sixteen years from the date of the impugned Order in Original, he must be ....