Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (4) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 110A of the Act, which was stated to have been filed – It was provided that if no such application was filed, the authorities shall take a final decision thereon, the Commission did not flouted the Court’s order - Court only required the Commissioner to decide an application for provisional release of the goods - If such an application is already filed or if not filed, the same may be filed and that the Commissioner shall decide the same expeditiously. Receiving of assessee application u/s 110A of the Act – Whether application was actually made and inwarded - Held that:- There is some ambiguity about application dated 21st September 2011 of the petitioner having been received by the Department - Assessee showed this Court the office co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot declared in the documents filed by the importer. On such basis, Department seized the entire consignment. The petitioner approached the Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 10079 of 2011 and prayed for release of the goods. Petition was disposed of by an order dated 9th September 2011. Directions were in two parts. For the goods other than four refrigerators and the memory cards, directions were given for provisional release of the goods on certain terms. For the remaining items, the Court passed the following order. (iii) For further remaining items namely the four refrigerators and the memory cards, it would be open for the petitioner to press for application under Section 110A of the Act, which is stated to have been file .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r 2011. The Department contends that even this letter was not received. Be that as it may, the Department did receive a further letter 18th April 2012 in which there was a reference to the lawyer s letter dated 28th March 2012. In this letter also, the petitioner made no mention of the first letter dated 21st September 2011. In this letter, the petitioner requested for release of the memory cards in terms of the order of the High Court. The Department did not decide these applications. Instead, conveyed under a communication at page 100A [the precise date of which is not clear] that the petitioner s original application dated 21st September 2011 was not received. The petitioner may, therefore, make a fresh application alongwith a copy .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rovisional release made under Section 110A of the Customs Act. The Commissioner ought not to have passed final order of adjudication without deciding such application particularly when the Court had directed early disposal of such application. He submitted that the Tribunal has ample power to pass such interim order as is found necessary to secure the ends of justice. He submitted that no releasing the goods would be detrimental to the petitioner s interest. The value of the goods would fast deteriorate, considering the fact that the goods in question are electronic goods. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Oza for the Department opposed the petition contending that the first application dated 21st September 2011 of the petitioner w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rovided that if such an application is already filed or if not filed, the same may be filed within two weeks and that the Commissioner shall decide the same expeditiously. There is some ambiguity about application dated 21st September 2011 of the petitioner having been received by the Department. The petitioner firmly contends that the same was received by the Inward Clerk on 13th September 2011 for which a stamp is affixed. Counsel for the petitioner showed us the office copy of such an application on which such a stamp is affixed. We need not dispute this stand of the petitioner. Nevertheless, in a writ petition, it would not be possible for us to conclude in a document shown across the table that the application was actually made and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates