Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1993 (4) TMI 163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lication are briefly as under : (a) The applicants imported from Japan Low Ash Metallurgical (LAM) Coke in two consignments in June 1986 and May 87. At the time of import, the consignments were cleared by the Customs Department on the basis that they were fully exempt from customs duty and additional duty. However, subsequently, the Department issued two show cause notices demanding payment of duty amounting to Rs. 15,22,741 and Rs. 74,44,562/- respectively. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam confirmed the duty demand by order dated 11th October, 1988. (b) The Collector (Appeals) by order dated 12-7-1989 dismissed the appeal of the applicants and upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. (c) The applicants preferred .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... formed the respondents through their Counsel that an application for restoration of the appeal had already been filed in the Tribunal and stating that no further action should be taken in the matter pending hearing of the restoration application. The respondents, however, issued a detention notice on 4-5-1992. The applicants informed the respondents by Counsel s letter dated 15-5-1992 that the restoration application bearing C/ROA/35/92-C was fixed for hearing and thereafter correspondence took place between the applicants and respondents who did not withdraw the detention notice. (f) The applicants forwarded the copy of the miscellaneous order No. 175/92 restoring the appeal to the respondents under cover of their letter dated 6-10-1992, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n 142 of Customs Act 1962 To M/s. Sandur Manganese Iron Ores Ltd. Sandur House, Bangalore-560052 Sub: Import of LAM Coke under B.E. No. 054/6.6.86 and 043/8.5.87 -..... Whereas you have failed to pay a sum of Rs. 79,67,303/- (Rs. Seventy Nine lakhs, sixty seven thousands, three hundred and three only) demanded from you vide this office order-in-original file No. s.S8(a)/266/86-AP and S8(a)172/87-AP dated 1-9-1988, read with this Custom House letter of even no. dated 27-3-1992, issued to you. Please take notice that the amount will be recovered from any money payable to you by this Custom House or other Custom Houses or from the sale proceeds of any goods belonging to you which are under the control of this Custom House or othe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ection to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs and furnish a guarantee was not complied with within the period stipulated therein; however, he subsequently withdrew his objection after being satisfied on a perusal of the relevant correspondence including the letter dated 11-6-1992 of the applicants Counsel, setting out details of the compliance with the High Court order. He has no objections to the grant of the prayers in this application. 6. We have perused the records and in particular the stay order of the Tribunal, the order of the Hon ble Delhi High Court and the various miscellaneous orders of the Tribunal. From a reading of the miscellaneous order No. 175/92-C dated 1-9-1992, it is clear that the appeal was dismissed for default of appearance und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aside the order of dismissal of the appeal and for restoring the appeal to file and the application was dismissed as per the majority view of the Tribunal. A special civil application was filed in Gujarat High Court for setting aside the above mentioned order of the Tribunal. The appellant paid the entire amount of redemption fine and also Rs. 1 lakh of penalty and had executed a guarantee to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs in pursuance of the orders passed by the High Court from time to time. The High Court held that the restoration of the appeal would not amount to review of the earlier order and rejected the majority view of the Tribunal that in the absence of an expressed provision authorising restoring of an appeal dismissed on the ground o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates