TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otherwise dealing with the capital goods – petition, which is, therefore, dismissed. - 1250 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2009 - T.P.S. Mann, J. REPRESENTED BY: Shri Aman Chaudhary, Advocate, for the Petitioner. S/Shri M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Hemant Sarin, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - On 7-7-1999, an order (Annnexure P-1) was passed by the petitioner restraining the respondents' Concern from removing, parting with or otherwise dealing with the capital goods valued at Rs. 27.12 crores, except with the prior permission of the Department in terms of proviso to Section 110(I) of the Customs Act, 1962. The said restraint order was challenged by the respondents' Concern by filing CWP No. 11029 of 1999, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition stands disposed of as above. No costs. Copy of the order be supplied dasti on payment of usual charges. September 21, 1999. Sd/- N.K. Sud Sd/- N.K. Sodhi Judges" 2. As is clear from the aforementioned order, the Department was directed to pass a final order as expeditiously as possible but not later than 31-10- 1999 and till then the restraint order was directed to continue. It was also directed that respondent No. 2, in the writ petition, shall depute a senior Officer of the Department to prepare an inventory of the meat already manufactured in the presence of the representatives of the respondents' Concern latest by 1-10-1999 and the respondents' Concern was, thereafter, allowed to export the manufactured meat in accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment wanted to take possession of the record by preparing resumption memo, they were obstructed by the staff of the respondents' Concern, who even refused to sign the resumption memo. The resumption memo was, however, prepared by the Officers of the Department in the presence of two in dependent witnesses, who appended their signatures. 5. According to the respondents, as is clear from their respective re plies, there was nothing in the restraint order dated 7-7-1999 debarring the respondents' Concern from continuing with the manufacturing process. The intention of the Department in passing the restraint order was to secure its financial interest regarding the duty payable by the respondents' Concern on the capital goods imported by it. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
