Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2006 (12) TMI 151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cond hand printing machines. As per the import policy then obtaining, the import of used printing machinery by actual user could be done without licence subject to the condition that the importer shall not sell the machinery within five years after the date of import and the machinery imported should also be manufactured within five years from the date of import. If the importer wants to sell the imported machinery, that could be done only after obtaining permission from the Director General of Foreign Trade. Under the above statutory parameters, during the relevant period of time, the individual importers have imported 209 machineries by filing individual bill of entry and by clearing the goods from the Customs Authorities individually. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be cleared on imposing redemption duty with nominal fine. 6. The other writ petitions are also filed by individual petitioners in respect of that portion of the order of imposition of penalty on them in the very same order of the Tribunal. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has very strenuously contended that as per Section 129A of the Customs Act, the order of Commissioner of Customs - second respondent is appealable to the first respondent - Appellate Tribunal. Invoking the said provision, the petitioner has filed an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal in respect of the portion of the order, which went against the petitioner. However, the Tribunal, in total disregard to the statutory provisions, has set aside the whole of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 9. I heard the argument of the learned Counsel on either side and perused the material on record. 10. Section 129A of the Customs Act proceeds as follows : "Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. - (1) Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order : (a)        a decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority;             ............. (the other sub-clauses in clause (1) and clause (2) are not relevant to the case on hand and hence not extracted.)             ............. (3)&n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hree months, as stipulated in Clause (3). On receipt of notice that an appeal has been preferred under this section, the party against whom the appeal has been preferred may, notwithstanding that he may not have appealed against such order or any part thereof, file, within forty-five days of the receipt of the notice, a memorandum of cross-objections verified in such manner as may be specified by rules made in this behalf against any part of the order appealed against and such memorandum shall be disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented within the time specified in sub-section (3). 12. But in this case, it is obvious that in respect of that portion of the order of the second respondent, which went against t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er itself, if it is in a position to do so on the basis of the averments made in the affidavit filed. Even when an alternative remedy has been availed by a party and not pursued, and rather withdrawn, the party could prosecute proceedings under Article 226 for the same relief or for rather a larger relief. In this case the writ petitions were filed and entertained by this Court in the year 2002 and are pending for the past four years for consideration of this Court by granting interim orders. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner need not be relegated to the statutory remedy. Useful reference can be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.J.S. Business Enterprises Private Limited v. State of Bihar and Others reported....