TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of the said contract, an Irrevocable Letter of Credit was established and in pursuance of the said contract first consignment of 364.292 M. Tons of the goods was shipped on 17-5-1982 and a Bill of Entry seeking clearance of the same was filed on 20-5-1982. The proceedings in respect of the said consignment were initiated by way of issuance of a Show Cause Notice dated 16-6-1982 alleging that the goods in question are Stainless Steel Sheets in folded form and are not angles. Accordingly, the notice proposed confiscation of the same and imposition of penalty. The said Notice culminated into the order passed by the adjudicating authority on 4-8-1982 confiscating the goods with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having been challenged before the Tribunal. Shri Rawal submits that now the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal also stands rejected and as such the said order has become final. As such, it was not open to the Revenue to challenge the subsequent consignment on the same facts and grounds. As such he submits that the legal plea of res judicata is available to the appellants and the present appeal is to be allowed on the said short ground. For the aforesaid proposition, he relied upon the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Pujari Bai v. Madan Gopal-1989 (3) SCC 433, as also the decision in the case of Tilochand Motichand v. H.H. Munshi reported in AIR 1970 SC 898. 5. Apart from the above, he also submits that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e used as angles for the purpose of strengthening any framework or structure and could not therefore be accepted as angles. The said dispute in respect of the first consignment out of the same contract travelled up to the Board and after considering the relevant facts and law on the point, the Board in Para 21 of its Order has held that Public Notice. 15/82 would have beyond a shadow of doubt only prospective effect. As such, it was observed in Para 22 of the order that the irrevocable Letter of Credit for the importation under appeal was opened by the appellants on 19-12-1981 and the Board holds accordingly that the importation cannot be hit by the mischief of the Public Notice. Further, in Para 30 of its order, the Board observed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
