|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 162 Records
-
2020 (2) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Refund of duty - petitioner's failure in producing the documentary evidences indicating that the petitioner has not passed on the duty burden to the consumers or end-users - principles of unjust enrichment - Entitlement of interest on delayed refunds.
HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered view that the process involved in processing the refund casts serious duty upon the concerned officer to advert to the facts pleaded before the authority for coming to the conclusion that though refund is payable but the same is required to be deposited and paid in the Consumer Fund for want of any document or other evidence to indicate that the payment of refund would not result into "unjust enrichment" to the recipient.
The order impugned unfortunately is absolutely silent qua the contention of the ONGC, which on the face of it, indicate that the machinery in question on which the duty was paid and duty was sought to be claimed as refund was not in any manner capable of being dealt with in or passing, so as to pass on the burden of duty to the consumer or end-user as there was no end-user or customer in the instant case. The authorities in uncanny avoidance to deal with this aspect has rendered the order vitiated and, therefore, decision of the authority qua depositing the amount into the consumer fund is required to be deprecated, quashed and set aside.
The authority may be called upon to decide the aspect of payment of refund along with interest without further insisting upon any other material and based upon the material which has already been submitted and giving liberty to the petitioner to produce any material, if they so choose, and decide to make payment of refund with appropriate interest admissible under law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of writ of the Court - Petition allowed in part.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1009 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Imposition of penalty u/s 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 on appellant-CHA - import of some unbranded goods in the name of branded goods - Drugs and cosmetics (4th Amendment) Rules, 2010 were already in existence - requirement of mandatory registration of the cosmetic goods to be imported not complied with - HELD THAT:- Section 114AA mandates imposition of penalty where any person who in relation to any goods knowingly or intentionally does any of such act as mentioned in the above provision that he shall be liable to the penalty. Thus it becomes clear that to confirm the penalty under this provision there must be ample evidence about the knowledge and intention of the person who is concerned with the import of goods.
Further perusal of his findings revealed that there is no such check conducted by Commissioner (Appeals). No such evidence is otherwise apparent from the record to prove that the CHA had ulterior motive of tax evasion or to falsify his voluntary statement about simple unawareness towards the mandate of registration certificate while importing the cosmetics. Accordingly, the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) that the CHA did not make even the minimum efforts to ensure the veracity of the submissions made to the department is not sufficient to hold that the said failure was intentional and that the CHA had the mensrea to facilitate the importer in his wrong act of not obtaining the certificate as mandated under Cosmetics Rules, 2010.
The allegations against the appellants are mainly concerned with failure to discharge their duties and responsibilities mandated under various Regulations for dealing with goods in legalized manner. However, apparently, there is no material evidence available on records to prove that the appellants intentionally encouraged and supported the wrong doer i.e. the importer in doing the wrongful act of attempting to export the branded cosmetic goods in violation of Cosmetic Rules, 2010. Section 114A of the Act is applicable only when there is sufficient evidence about prior knowledge of wrong doing or existence of deliberated intend (malafide). It also provides for imposition of penalty for furnishing incorrect or false declarations and that such declaration should also be intentional with prior knowledge.
The appellant since was unaware of the mandatory registration while importing branded cosmetics, as required by the Cosmetic Rules, 2010 being very recent in time. The malafide intent cannot be attributed to him - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1005 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Export of studded Jewellery - buyer of Diamonds studded jewellery made complaint against 11 articles (out of total 207 pieces) as not being up to the standard - allegation that benefit of N/N. 158/1995 denied - HELD THAT:- At the time of re-import of the 11 items, which have been exported by the appellant vide shipping Bill No. 6815 dated 28.10.2014, the appellants have clearly mentioned that they are re-importing goods which were previously exported in the details it has been provided that the re-import items are weighing 53.280 gms of 11 articles of jewellery which were meant for re-export and every item has a specific mention of its S.No. in previous export shipping bill and invoices. The Bill of Entry has been assessed by the concerned officer on the satisfaction that the goods being re-imported are the same which have been exported by Shipping Bill No. 6815 dated 28.10.2014 and they were part of consignment which were previously exported and covered by the relevant packing list and linvoice.
Re-export after repair and resetting - HELD THAT:- The shipping bill has been assessed by the concerned Superintendent as well as Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Diggy House, Jaipur on 28.02.2015. The appellants have made a true declaration of the repairs and resetting they have undertaken which resulted into variation in the weight of gold by 3.69 gms and weight of diamond by 0.81 CTS. We find that the concerned officer after having satisfied themselves about the identity of the items have allowed re-export of the imported items which were re-imported.
The appellants have not charged anything extra from the importer for re-setting and repair of the goods have been exported after repairs and reconditioning at the same price and sent back to the same buyer. The assessing officer of the export consignment have allowed the export after having satisfied themselves with the identity of export items being same as was re-import - there is no violation of condition No. 3 of S.No. 1 of the Notification No. 158/95 Cus dated 14.11.95 as it only requires the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner of Customs as regards the identity of goods since the shipping bill for re-export of the imported items have been assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, it is apparent that he is satisfied with the fact that the goods being re-exported are the same which have been re-imported.
Since in this case, the variation is only of 3.69 gms in the weight which is very minor variation and otherwise also both the import invoice and export invoice has the photograph of all the concerned 11 items of jewellery and the officer after being satisfied with the identity of goods have allowed the export of the same, there are no justification in confirming the duty on the items imported which were actually have been exported by the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 969 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Demand for Cost Recovery Charges and Merchant Overtime Charges - demand for Duty Free Shop which the petitioner operates at Dabolim International Terminal - HELD THAT:- By our Interim Order dated 16.1.2012, we had protected the petitioner insofar as CRC Charges are concerned but directed the petitioner to pay MOT Charges until the disposal of the petition to the respondents. There is no dispute that the petitioner have paid the MOT Charges in terms of our Order, though, at one stage there was issue of deposit of such charges in this Court instead of actual payment to the respondents - According to us, the interim position can continue until the disposal of the adjudication proceedings by the respondents. This means that the petitioner will only be liable to pay the MOT Charges and that too without prejudice to their contention that these charges are not liable to be paid in respect of the Duty Free Shop which they operate at Dabolim International Airport.
This petition is disposed off by recording the statement made on behalf of the respondent that within a period of four weeks from today Show Cause Notice will be issued to the petitioner for the purpose of adjudication proceedings.
-
2020 (2) TMI 968 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - Order of seizure passed by the Superintendent of Customs - demurrage charge - Jurisdiction to pass order u/s 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The Petitioner, on instructions, states that the Petitioner would file an appeal to the Appellate Authority in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT -I) MUMBAI VERSUS S.S. OFFSHORE PVT. LTD. [2017 (12) TMI 1460 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - The Petitioner has sought to raise various legal questions such as authority of the Officer who passed the order under section 110A of the Act, the validity of the seizure under section 110 as also the issue regarding detention and demurrage charges.
Keeping all the contentions of both the parties open, the petition is disposed off with liberty to the Petitioner to file an appeal.
-
2020 (2) TMI 967 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Smuggling - Betel Nuts of foreign origin - illegal importation - Revenue’s entire reliance is on the basis of ARDF Certificate - Confiscation of truck - imposition of penalties - HELD THAT:- As it is reported that the ARDF is not an accredited Laboratory, no legal liability can flow from the report of such institution. The Revenue could not prove that the goods were smuggled or produce any corroborative evidence in support of their case.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2020 (2) TMI 966 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation of imported goods - motor yatch of model “Azimut 68 Evolution” - allegation of mis declaration and under valuation - Rejection of declared value - Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules followed or not - HELD THAT:- Learned Commissioner of Customs has not rejected the value declared by the appellant under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2002, instead, it appears that he has considered the price quoted in the proforma invoice to be the actual price paid or payable - the value declared in terms of Section 14 can be rejected only under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 under which as per Rule 12 (1) “ when the proper officer has reason to doubt about the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to any imported goods, he may ask he importer of such goods to furnish further evidence and if, after receiving such further information, or in the absence of a response of such importer, the proper officer still has reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the value so declared, it shall be admitted that the transaction value of such imported goods cannot be determined under the provisions of Sub Rule 1 of Rule 3”.
In the instant case the Commissioner finds that “it is a well established principle that once a discrepancy has been noticed in respect of description particulars, the onus of proving correct values shifts from revenue to the importer. Learned Commissioner proceeds on the value appearing in the proforma invoice and applied the same to the impugned case in terms of Rule 3 (1). However it is pertinent to note that under Rule 12 in case the officer has a doubt about the truth or accuracy of the declared value etc., the value cannot be determined under the provisions of sub-rule 1 of Rule 3 of CVR 2007.
The adjudicating authority is required to give his findings after properly evaluating the evidence on record and the provisions of law. He can not arbitrarily jump to the provisions of CVR, 2007, without rejecting the transaction value declared in terms of Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 - Having given the findings that the value declared under Section 14 is not correct due to the misdeclaration, the learned Commissioner has no scope to determine the value under Rule 3 (1) in terms of the provisions of Rule 12 of CVR, 2007.
It will be in the interest of justice that the matter should go back to the Original Authority for the proper appreciation of the available records, evidence on hand and legal aspects before determining or re-determining the value declared - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (2) TMI 920 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Refund of SAD - denial on the ground that the description of the imported goods in Bills of Entry is “Calcium Carbonate Powder” but the same mentioned in the sale invoices as “Mineral Powder - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the Revenue that either the goods are different or that they are different categories per se, falling under different HSN. No doubt, appellant could have submitted a certificate by an expert in the field in order to facilitate easy appreciation of the issue by the Revenue, but then the adjudicating authority could have questioned the same, invited explanation to his satisfaction, in order to arrive at any conclusion. It is not even his case that the descriptions would bring into existence two different goods, different in all respects nor has the Revenue proved that the Mineral Powder is not a generic term for the goods in question.
The Order-in-Original is not even alleging that “Calcium Carbonate Powder” and “Mineral Powder” are different. Even if they are assumed to be different, then, how they are different cannot be a guess work but based on some analysis, which is lacking.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 919 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Classification of imported goods - Educational Charts - whether classified under Custom Tariff Heading 49059990 or under Customs Tariff Heading 49119990? - maps or depicting the terrestrial features or not - HELD THAT:- It is very clear from the examination report and the sample charts produced before us that these charts are not in nature of maps or depicting the terrestrial features. Even appellant on the Bill of Entry have not claimed that these goods are maps of any kind. When it is not even the case of the importers that the imported goods are maps, then they are definitely not justified in claiming the classification under heading 4905. Hence their claim for classification under heading 4905 99 90 has been rightly rejected by the lower authorities.
There are no infirmity in the impugned order determining the classification of the impugned goods under Heading 4911 99 90, which is based on the terms of headings in Customs Tariff and HSN Explanatory Notes for the said heading. However to determine the practice of assessment elsewhere a bit of research undertaken by us made us lay hand on the import data available in respect of the same goods at “zuaba. com” which were cleared from the ICD Tughlakabad and Nhava Sheva Port classifying the said goods in same manner.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 876 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Demand of pending dues of Cost Recovery Charges alongwith the interest - Customs Cargo Service Provider (CCSP) - period from 01/01/2016 till 31/03/2018 - cancellation of CHA license on failure of payment of dues alongwith imposition of penalties - mechanism for recovery of dues not present - scope of SCN - HELD THAT:- The appellant is an approved Customs Cargo Service Provider under the HCCAR, 2009. Further, the appellants for the last two years have paid the Cost Recovery Charges of ₹ 42,11,029/- [01/01/2014 to 31/12/2014] and ₹ 58,23,776/- [01/01/2015 to 31/12/2015] and the appellants were eligible for exemption from payment of Cost Recovery Charges from 04/12/2015 in terms of Boards Instructions dated 12/09/2005. Further, the appellants vide letter dated 11/01/2016 to the Commissioner of Customs sought exemption/waiver from payment of Cost Recovery and the Commissioner of Customs vide its letter dated 16/02/2016 to Additional Director General and Under Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue informed that the appellants have achieved the bench mark in the year 2014-15 and 2015-16 and that the appellants have also remitted the Cost Recovery Charges up to 31/12/2015.
In the show-cause notice the allegations against the appellant was that they have violated the Regulations 5(1)(iii) relating to Insurance Policy and Regulations 5(2) relating to non-payment of cost recovery charges and Regulation 5(3) relating to Bank Guarantee. Out of these three charges, the Commissioner has held that the appellant has complied with the Regulation 5(1)(iii) and 5(3) and has confirmed the demand under Regulation 5(2) - Further, the impugned order directing the appellant to pay Cost Recovery Charges of ₹ 2,18, 47,100/- is beyond the show-cause notice because in the show-cause notice the only allegation is that the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions as laid down in Regulations 5 (1) (iii), 5(2) and 5(3). Therefore, the payment of recovery in the impugned order is beyond the show-cause notice and is not sustainable.
In HCCAR, 2009, no recovery mechanism for recovery of Cost Recovery Charges has been provided and this has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VERSUS CC, JODHPUR [2019 (2) TMI 507 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and it has been held by the Tribunal that if the Regulation has no provisions for recovery of unpaid Cost Recovery Charges then the recovery cannot be effected in law.
The impugned order directing the appellant to pay the pending dues of Cost Recovery Charges for the period from 01/01/2016 till 31/03/2018 along with interest is premature and cannot be given effect to unless the application of the appellant dated 11/01/2016 to the Commissioner of Customs seeking exemption/waiver from payment of Cost Recovery Charges is decided by the respondent - appeal disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 875 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Undervaluation of goods - import of certain spares of automobiles - not branded goods - appellant submitted that the Revenue did not have any evidence that the appellants have made payment to the overseas exporters in addition to what was stated in the invoices and in the absence of any additional consideration flowing from the importer to the exporter overseas, under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, transaction value has to be accepted - HELD THAT:- Though the adjudicating authority has stated that the goods were found to be branded, the information as to which brand the goods were belonging to is totally missing in the adjudication order. The objection raised by the appellant in respect of documents which were load port documents is valid and Revenue could not establish that the load port documents were admissible evidence for relying for initiating any proceedings.
The department could not establish as to how the information about load port document was procured by the Revenue and therefore the information stated in the Show Cause Notices obtained from exporting country is not reliable as evidence. Other than that there is no evidence relied on in the Show Cause Notice for alleging undervaluation - thus, undervaluation in the present case is not established.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, NOIDA VERSUS M/S. SANJIVANI NON-FERROUS TRADING PVT. LTD. [2018 (12) TMI 738 - SUPREME COURT] that in the absence of any contrary evidence, the value actually paid has to be accepted as Transaction Value. The value actually paid is Invoice value.
Impugned order set aside - appeal allowed with direction to Revenue to assess the Bills of Entry on the basis of value declared in the Bills of Entry and complete the assessment within a period of two weeks from the date a copy of this order is served by the appellant on Revenue.
-
2020 (2) TMI 874 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund of SAD - Focus Product Scheme - denial of refund on the ground that SAD has not been paid in cash but through scrips and as such the amount cannot be refunded - HELD THAT:- Strong reliance has been placed on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court judgement in Allen Diesels India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2016 (2) TMI 247- DELHI HIGH COURT] where the Hon'ble High Court had held that for refund of SAD it is not necessary that the same should have been paid in cash and it is sufficient if the payment is through using various scrips.
Commissioner (Appeals) is finding fault with the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Allen Diesels India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2016 (2) TMI 247 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that since the said circular was not brought to the notice, the Judgement is not correct. The said action on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals) amounts to contempt of the Hon'ble High Court inasmuch as non-following of a judgment of the superior courts by finding faults in the same, is admittedly not in accordance with the legal adjudication proceedings. Commissioner (Appeals) being a senior officer of the Revenue should have been aware of the legal precedent of following the higher courts decision irrespective of his personal views of the judgment being correct or otherwise.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 856 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Import of Poppy Seeds - prohibited goods or not - validity of guidelines dated 13th September 2019 for the registration of the sales contract for the import of the poppy seeds from Turkey to India issued vide Public Notice No.PS-11-2019 - HELD THAT:- We take notice of the fact that the guidelines dated 25th June 2019 issued by the Central Bureau of Narcotics to regulate the import into India of the poppy seeds was the subject matter of challenge before the Bombay High Court in the case of Chailbihari Trading Private Limited and another v. Union of India and another [2019 (8) TMI 1387 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - the Bombay High Court took the view that there is a power to regulate and a power to impose quantitative restrictions, and in the absence of challenge to the exercise of such power, the guidelines in the form of policy cannot be declared as ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India. The Bombay High took the view that the guidelines are a step towards implementing a policy that had been in place past couple of years but, was in furtherance of a policy to promote the larger public interest.
Although we are not inclined to strike down the guidelines in the form of a policy as ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India, yet we remind the Union of India of the observations made by the Delhi High Court in DEVKI GLOBAL CAPITAL PVT. LTD. AND ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2019 (9) TMI 1321 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
After the decision of the Bombay High Court referred to above, the policy came to be amended with effect from 13th September 2019. We have already given a fair idea as regards the fine points of distinction between the old policy and the new policy. There has been a remarkable shift in the new policy, however, what is hurting the writ-applicant is the policy of 'first-come-first-serve'. This, according to the writ-applicant, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Needless to mention at this stage that it is the prerogative of the respondents to frame a policy. However, such policy must be transparent, fair and reasonable. We suggest that the Union should consider framing a policy which provides for a fair chance to every applicant in procuring the importable quantity irrespective of the date of their application. Such process must be transparent and fair. The process can be made more transparent if the list of successful candidates is uploaded on the website of the respondent no.2 as was being done before the policy dated 25th June 2019.
Adopting a methodology of first-come-first-serve has inherent flaws and anybody having access to the power corridor at some level is likely to secure unfair advantage at the cost of the other applicants who may not have similar access. In such circumstances, it is suggested that the respondents should device a better mechanism/policy for the allotment of quota so as to make the process much more competitive, transparent, fair and reasonable.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 823 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Benefit under EPCG license - inaction on the part of the respondents in not issuing a letter / certificate clarifying whether M/s. Electrotherm (India) Limited located within the jurisdiction of the respondent No.3 has utilised the invalidation letter or not - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, it appears from the contents of the letter that the matter is under consideration. However, we direct the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade to expedite the matter and furnish the necessary information asked for by the writ applicant at the earliest. Application disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 822 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Direction to the Respondents to finally assess the Petitioner’s Bills of Entry - Release of Bank Guarantee and Bonds - gross delay in making the final assessment - HELD THAT:- The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that he is satisfied with this statement and prays that the order be passed after giving due hearing. Needless to state that the order will be passed as per the Rules and the law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 821 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Penalty u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act - smuggling - Chinese crackers - demand based on statements of the co noticees - retraction of statements - HELD THAT:- Apart from the statement of Shri Harish Goyal , there is virtually no other evidence to establish that the appellant was, in any case, associated with the import of the goods in question, neither the bill of entry was filed by him - The entire case of the Revenue is based upon the retracted statements of the co noticees. It is well established law that the statements of the co-noticees, unless corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence, do not constitute the legal evidence.
There are no justification for imposition of penalty upon the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 771 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Direction to clear the consignment “Yellow Peas/Green Peas” - restriction on import of Yellow Peas - HELD THAT:- Clandestinely, the petitioner without mentioning anything about the dismissal of W.P.Nos.11677 and 11681 of 2019 on 16.04.2019 filed this writ petition before the Madurai Bench of this Court during May 2019 - It is to be stated that if the petitioner is aggrieved over the action/inaction of the respondents, they could have very well filed appropriate petition before this Court. But the petitioner, having invited an dismissal order on 16.04.2019 superseding the earlier order dated 18.03.2019, has chosen to file the instant writ petition suppressing the dismissal of the earlier writ petition for the very same relief. Hence, now they cannot blame the respondents that they have not cleared the consignment or disobeyed the orders of this Court.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 770 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interpretation of Statute - imposition of interest on the difference of duty upon final assessment made by the Assessing Authority, for the period prior to the amendment in law, viz., w.e.f. 13 July 2006 - insertion of the provisions in Section 18(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, w.e.f. 13 July 2006 - HELD THAT:- Prior to amendment of law, by insertion of Section 18(3) of the Act in the Customs Act, the Revenue could not demand any interest on the differential duty assessed upon final assessment where the goods have been cleared on provisional assessment under Section 18(1) of the Act. The retrospective levy is not intended and the amendment in Law is a substantive provision for making a provision for levy of interest in the present case - Therefore, for a period prior to 13.07.2006, such levy of interest cannot be imposed on the Assessee.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 769 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Stay of recovery notice - Release of Bank Guarantee executed by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- It is for the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) to deal with the appeal, which is the subject matter of remit now made by the Appellate Tribunal, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned. A copy of the final order dated 08.01.2020 rendered by the Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore has been made available, along with a memo dated 28.12.2019 filed by the counsel for the petitioner in this case, with a bench mark today.
Both sides should ensure that the bank guarantee in question shall be kept alive and shall be renewed from time to time, until the disposal of the matter by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in the matter that is now remitted to that authority by the Appellate Tribunal - Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 768 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Recovery of dues - time limitation for filing appeal - Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- It is ordered that the respondents concerned will permit the petitioner to clear the dues covered by Exts.P-1 & P-2 by paying off the same in 6 equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be payable on or before 29.2.2020 and the subsequent 5 instalments shall be payable on or before the last day of the respective months concerned. In case the petitioner defaults with any one of the abovesaid instalments, then the respondents concerned will be at liberty to proceed further for the enforcement of impugned demand, in the manner known to law.
Petition disposed off.
........
|
