TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot separable and as in the case of Aslam it is held by the Tribunal that on the basis of some discrepancies in the goods and the customs receipts, it cannot be inferred that the goods in question are smuggled goods & the said order of the Tribunal has been upheld by this Court, thus the decision holding that the goods purchased by the petitioner are smuggled goods cannot be sustained - The respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the CESTAT, since the petition filed to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner (A) has been admitted on 1st December, 1998 and the Writ Petition is since pending for more than a decade, we consider it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition on merits instead of driving the petitioner-assessee to file appeal at this belated stage. 3) The relevant facts are that by a common order in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscated the goods and gave option to the petitioner and Aslam to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine and penalty. 5) On appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) by a common order dated 30th October, 1998 reduced the redemption fine and personal penalty imposed against the petitioner, but deferred final decision against Aslam in view of proceedings pending be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that applies to the case of Aslam. Further appeal filed by the revenue against the order of CESTAT in the case of Aslam has been dismissed by this Court on 24th August, 2005. 8) It is relevant to note that the discrepancy in goods noticed by the adjudicating authority is common to the case of the petitioner and Aslam and they are not separable. Admittedly, in the case of Aslam it is held by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
