Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1369 - HC - CustomsRefund of amount collected towards customs duty alongwith interest - alleged diversion of 25 kgs of duty free gold purchased by the petitioner from respondent No. 4 without payment of customs duty - delay occurred on the part of the petitioner in assailing the impugned order dated 12.02.2020. Refund claim - HELD THAT:- At the first instance, what is to be seen is that the petitioner had not challenged the show cause notice that was issued on 31.07.2017. At the same time, the petitioner had submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice after more than around fifteen (15) months i.e. on 08.11.2018. The authorities concerned, vide order dated 12.02.2020, passed the final order holding that the petitioner had to make payment of Rs. 73,52,935/- towards customs duty on 25 kgs of duty free gold, which was diverted by the petitioner in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act. In addition, it was also ordered that the petitioner shall be liable to pay interest in terms of Section 28AA of the Customs Act and the interest stood quantified at Rs. 3,26,547/-. The learned counsel produced before this Court a writ petition of similar nature involving the petitioner himself, being filed by the respondent No. 4 herein i.e. M/s. Metals and Minerals Trading Corporation (MMTC Limited) [2023 (5) TMI 22 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT], which the Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 25.04.2023 being not inclined to entertain and the same was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy. Once when the Division Bench of this High Court in the dispute between the same parties has taken a view that the impugned order being an appealable order, the writ petition would not be maintainable and this Court is inclined to take the same view of the writ petition being not maintainable. Inordinate delay that has occurred on the part of the petitioner in assailing the impugned order - HELD THAT:- Though the impugned order is the one which was passed on 12.02.2020, the present writ petition has been filed only on 21.06.2023 i.e. after more than three (3) years time - the impugned order does not warrant interference at this stage invoking the writ jurisdiction, firstly on the ground that the petition has been preferred with an inordinate delay, though the learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to give explanation for the delay caused, but the explanation so provided does not find force as there were ample opportunities available to the petitioner to have approached the competent Court of law for redressal of the grievance that he had. This Court is also not inclined to entertain the same for the reason that under the similar set of facts between the same parties, involving the petitioner himself, having not being entertained by the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that the appeal is an appealable order and the petitioner’s liberty to assail the same stood reserved. The present writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
|