9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/-, within three months from the receipt of the order. The order passed by the Collector was challenged by the Petitioner in appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. By an order dated 7 April 1993 the Tribunal, while noting that the order of confiscation of the gold and gold ornaments weighing 1522.150 gms had not been seriously challenged, reduced the redemption fine to Rs.40,000/- and the personal penalty to Rs.20,000/-. During the pendency of the appeal, the Petitioner has stated that he paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the personal penalty of Rs.20,000/- on 12 August 1992. According to the Petitioner, he had approached the Revenue for the release of the ornaments. 2. These proceedings were insti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the failure of the Petitioner to pay the redemption fine within a reasonable period, the Revenue sold the confiscated gold on 22 March 2006. In the meantime, it has been stated, communications were addressed to the Petitioner on 28 October 1991, 28 May 1993, 29 April 1997 and 28 July 1997 inspite of which the Petitioner did not pay the redemption fine. Copies of those communications are annexed to the affidavit in reply. Besides it has been stated that the Petitioner was informed on 26 May 2003 that as a result of the failure of the Petitioner to pay the redemption fine, the Commissioner of Customs had passed an order for the disposal of the ornaments as a result of which the release of the gold ornaments could not be allowed. Despite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Exhibits D and G) that the Petitioner was ready and willing to pay the redemption fine and penalty. After the final order of the Tribunal, the Petitioner took no steps whatsoever until 2009 when he addressed a communication to the Respondents. As stated in the affidavit in reply, the Petitioner was put on notice by the Superintendent of Customs (Preventive), Gold Control, Mumbai by letters dated 28 May 1993, 29 April 1997, 28 July 1997, 26 May 2003, 3 April 2006 and 23 February 2010. The contents of the affidavit in reply have not been traversed in rejoinder. On this state of the record, it is apparent that the Petitioner was himself to blame in not paying the redemption fine within a reasonable period. A period of nearly 18 years elapsed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
