TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1029
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed vehicle) & Shri Rohit (Helper of the seized vehicle) failed to provide any documentary evidences such as invoices, bill of entry, etc for proper importation of said goods as the same were intercepted from a place which is close to Indo-Nepal Border Pillar No.764/5 on 05.10.2020 and both of them accepted vide their statement dated 05.10.2020 recorded vide Section 108 of the Act that they had no connection with the seized peas. Shri Rakesh Kumar Nishad categorically accepted that the said consignment was loaded near Sampoorna Nagar, by the person whom he don't know, destined to Lakhimpur Mandi. Later, while adjudicating the instant case, both the appellants submitted written submissions during the personal hearing on 24.08.2021 and submitted that the said consignment had all valid importation documents and Mr. Om Prakash Madhesiya, the appellant no.3, was the owner of the said consignment. I find that the these facts are contradictory to each other. I also find that the claimed owner of the goods came into picture after lapse of more than a year and the adjudicating authority has discussed the same in length in Para 20 of the impugned order. In view of this I find that the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a loaded in the vehicle. 2.2 No person was named by either the driver (the owner) or the helper who were intercepted with the vehicle and illicit goods. No documents were produced to establish the ownership of the said peas. No person came forward to claim the ownership of the said peas though bought driver and helper have in their statement stated that the owner of illicit peas was accompanying and would meet them in Lakhimpur Mandi. 2.3 Thus, on a reasonable belief that the recovered peas was illicitly brought into India through unauthorized routes in violation to the provisions of Notification No. 63/94(N.T.) dated 21.11.1994 under Section 7(1)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962, the same are liable for confiscation under Section 111(b) Customs Act, 1962 and vehicles loaded with said goods were also liable for confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Act and the same were seized under Section 110 of the Act. 2.4 Being perishable goods the said peas were auctioned and the money received i.e. Rs 88,200/- was deposited vide TR-6 Challan No 01 dated 27.10.2020. The seized vehicle was provisionally released to the owner of vehicle Shri Rakesh Kumar Nishad on execution of bond of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....344; बोलेरो पिकअप पंजीकरण संख्या UP-31/AT- 4492, अनुमानित कीमत रुपया 3,00,000/- (रुपया तीन लाख मात्र) की बैंक गारन्टी या सुरक्षा जमा राशि रुपया 30,000/- को सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 126 के अन्तर्गत भारत सरकार के पक्ष में समायोजित कर लिया ज&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reply to the show cause notice. Following the principles the opportunity of personal hearing was given on 24.08.2021, when Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh Advocate appeared on behalf of the owner (Shri Rakesh Kumar Nishad) and helper (Shri Rohit). Counsel also filed vakalatnama for one person namely Shri Om Prakash Madheshiya (Appellant), claiming to be the owner of the seized peas. 2.7 The said show cause notice was adjudicated as per the Order-in-Original dated 17.02.2022, holding as follows: "आदेश (क) मैं अभिग्रहीत 2940 किलोग्राम विदेशी मटर जिसका कुल मूल्य र 88,200/- ( रुपया अठ्ठासी हजार दो सौ मात्र) है, को सीमा श्ल्क अधिन&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....306; जमा कर दिया गया, अतः मैं उक्त धनराशि रु 88,200/- को भारत सरकार के खाते में समायोजित करने का आदेश देता हूँ। (ख) मैं अभिग्रहीत वाहन रजि. सं UP-31/AT-4492 मूल्य Rs.० 3,00,000/- को सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम. 1962 की धारा 115(2) के अंतर्गत अधिग्रहण करने का आदेश &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....का आदेश करता हूँ। (ग) श्री राकेश कुमार निषाद प्त्र श्री राम नरेश निषाद, निबासी- मोहल्ला ललिता नगर सैधरी, मिदनिया, थाना सदर, जिला- लखीमपुर खीरी (उ० प्र०) पर सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम 1962 की धारा 112 के अंतर्गत Rs. 5000- (रुपया पाँच हज....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3;िनियम 1962 की धारा- 1 12 के अंतर्गत रु 5000/- (रूपया पाँच हज़ार भात् I जुर्माना/अर्थदण्ड लगाये जाने का आदेश करता हूँ।" 2.8 Aggrieved appellant have filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal), which have been disposed off as per the impugned order referred in para-1 above. 2.9 Aggrieved appellants have filed this appeal. 3.1 I have heard Shri Nagendra Krishna Advocate for the appellant and Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorised Representative appearing for the revenue. 4.1 I have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 Appellant has challenging the impugned order stated following grounds:- 4.3 On 05.10.2020, the SSB officers of Sume....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action. 10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching the writ court is explained which would appeal to the conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot be gainsaid by the contesting party that for all times to come the delay is not to be condoned. There may be myriad circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction and it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a straight jacket formula with mathematical precision. The ultimate discretion to be exercised by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006 : (1964) 6 SCR 261], Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court [AIR 1967 SC 1450] and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India [(1992) 3 SCC 136 : (1992) 21 ATC 675 : (1992) 2 SCR 969]). This principle applies even in case of an infringement of fundamental right (vide Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110], Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185] and Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India [(1970) 1 SCC 84])." 4.5 In absence of any challenge by any other person who was involved in the handling and transportation of the illicitly imported peas, I am not in position to admit the challenge made by the appellant in respect of the confiscation of peas. It would lead to situation where the vehicles used for transporting the illicitly sized peas are held liable for confiscation, and the impugned peas are contrarily held not liable for confiscation. Impugned order takes note of all the statements recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 whose evidentiary value has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in series of decisions as follows: • Surjit Singh Chabbra [1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.....