9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er for release of goods was rejected and consequently directing the respondent to release the goods contained in Shipping Bill Nos. 3059706, 3063066, 3063537, 3064974 and 3066777 on the petitioner furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of this Court pending disposal of Customs Appeals bearing Nos. 437 and 438 of 2010." 2. The case of the petitioner is that as against the Commissioner's Order-in-Original No. 13642 of 2010, dated 19-11-2010, the petitioner-company had filed an appeal in Appeal No. 437 of 2010 and the Managing Director of the petitioner-company had filed Appeal No. 438 of 2010 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, the second respondent herein. 3. The stand of the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal has passed a conditional order as per which the petitioner has to pay fine of Rs. 45 lakhs; besides, even as per the order of the Commissioner also, the petitioner can redeem the goods, but, after paying fine of Rs. 45 lakhs; but, the petitioner-company was a sick unit and now, the petitioner-company is slowly recovering from the loss sustained; under such circumstances, the petitioner is not in a position to pay the fine amount of Rs. 45 lakhs; consequently, the goods have to be directed to be released on the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 45 lakhs. 5. On the other hand, according to the learned standing counsel for the respondent-department, now, the appeals are ripe for hearing before the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in the event of the petitioner's failure in appeals, the goods cannot be released. 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the order of the Commissioner itself, the goods can be released, however, subject to the condition of payment of Rs. 45 lakhs as fine. As such, the above stand of the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. Apart from this, this Court, in the earlier round of writ petitions, has already fixed time-limit by orders dated 20-6-2011 and till date, the appeals are also not disposed of and it is also not disputed that the goods are lying, for a period of three years, with the respondent-department. Yet another factor to be noted in this case is that the subject goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
