TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty; that subsequently when it was found that the goods were liable to Anti Dumping duty they deposited the same; however, subsequently a show cause notice was issued which culminated in the impugned Order under which the Commissioner confirmed the duty, imposed penalty of equal amount of Rs. 78,71,421/- and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 30 lakhs besides charging interest; that the applicants have deposited the total interest amount as well as 25% of the penalty in terms of the proviso to Section 114A of the Customs Act; that the Anti Dumping duty was charged on the basis of provisional notification whereas under the final notification the same has been reduced; that the applicants have already filed the refund claim. Shri Asthana, fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Customs, Madras, 1996 (83) E.L.T. 249 wherein applying the provisions of Section 14 of Limitation Act the appeal was allowed to be entertained by the Supreme Court. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Madura Coats Ltd. v. CCE, Madurai, 1994 (71) E.L.T. 347 and Union Carbide India Ltd. v. C.C, Calcutta, 1999 (110) E.L.T. 704 (Tribunal). 3. Opposing the prayer Shri R.C. Sankhla, learned D.R., submitted that the applicants cannot be allowed to have the benefit of multiplicity of the proceedings. They can either go to the Settlement Commissioner for settling the matter or before the Appellate Tribunal against the impugned Order. The learned D.R. also referred to the Order passed by the Settlement Commission in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id not entertain the matter as there was no pending proceeding for the levy, assessment or collection of duty. In the case of Pasupati Overseas the appellants instead of filing the appeal to the Tribunal filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed subsequently on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. When the appellants filed appeal before the Tribunal the same was not admitted being time barred. In such a situation the Supreme Court observed that this was a case where delay in filing the appeal could have been considered by resort to the principle under lying Section 14 . The Supreme Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and directed the Tribunal to entertain the said appeal without dismissing it on the ground o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
