TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (12) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....positing Rs. 50,000 on 16-10-2000. Thereafter during the hearing of the appeal the Tribunal passed a further interim order on 11-5-2001 under which as an interim direction was given to release the goods on payment of duty as declared by the appellant on the basis of provisional assessment. For the remaining amount the appellant was to give a Bond to the customs authorities. Provisional clearance should be allowed to the appellant without insisting on payment regarding redemption fine and penalty. 2.Even though the appellant approached the customs authorities with copy of the order dated 11-5-2001 for getting the goods assessed to duty for clearance, no action was taken by the customs authorities. Letters were addressed repeating the reques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prg. Refund Section regarding refund of the amount of Rs. 50,000 and the Bill of Entry was finally assessed on 1-5-2003 for payment of duty and thereafter effecting release of the goods. Since the affidavit was not satisfactory, on 10-6-2003 we directed the Commissioner to file a fresh affidavit on or before 5-8-2003. The case was then adjourned to 26-8-2003. The affidavit was filed by the Commissioner on 22-9-2003. From the averments in the affidavit it is seen that the stand taken by the Respondent is not that they were not aware of the interim order passed by the Tribunal on 11-5-2001 and the final order dated 3-9-2001. The party had intimated the Commissioner about these orders in time. Inaction is sought to be justified on the ground t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....can very well understand that after so much delay it may be that the applicant is not in a position to pay the dues on demurrage etc. for getting the goods cleared or that the goods might have got decayed by this time. It is not for us to examine this issue in these proceedings. 8.We heard Shri M. Chandrasekharan who is assisting the Court in these proceedings as Amicus Curiae. After going through the affidavits filed by the Commissioner, Shri Chandrasekharan submitted that since the present Commissioner took charge only on 11-11-2002 he may not be held responsible for the entire period of delay. 9.As mentioned earlier, we are not satisfied with the explanation offered by the Commissioner in not implementing the orders in time. But, at th....