TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings, by the CEGAT or the High Court, as the case may be, that may be adverse to the petitioner. - Decided in favour of assessee. - W. P. (C) 1617/1997 - - - Dated:- 2-7-2014 - S. Ravindra Bhat And Vibhu Bakhru,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sh. G. L. Rawal, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Rajesh Rawal and Sh. Jagjit Singh, Advocates For the Respondents : Sh. Ritika Jhurani, for Sh. Sachin Datta, Advocate. ORDER Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court) 1. The controversy in this case centres around interpretation of para 197(2) of the Import-Export Policy 1985-88 (hereafter the IE Policy ). 2. The petitioner feels aggrieved by an order dated 21.03.1997 made by the Appellate Committee constituted under the said IE Pol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mportation was lawful. The Judicial Member held otherwise. The third Member Sh. Gowri Shankar, to which the matter was referred, agreed with the view of the Technical Member and held that upon an interpretation of paras 70(2), 75(1) and 76 with relevant entries in the appendices, the import of rapeseed, a canalised item, was in the circumstances of the case, permissible without prior approval. 5. In the meanwhile, Addl. CCI E, in terms of the provisions of the IE Policy issued Show Cause Notice as to why penalty ought not to be imposed. After hearing the petitioner, the adjudicating authority was of the opinion that the terms of para 197(2) of the IE Policy had been violated. Accordingly, penalty of ₹ 19 lakhs was imposed. Furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he notice of the Court that the order of the CEGAT made in the light of opinion dated 28.12.1995 of the third Member Sh. Gowri Shankar, was sought to be questioned by way of Reference Petition. That Reference Petition was rejected by the CEGAT on 15.07.1996. The respondent, i.e. the Customs Department approached the Kerala High Court, which on 04.07.2013 (in O.P. 4866/1997) held that the rejection of the Reference Petitioner was not warranted. The Kerala High Court further condoned the delay in preferring the Reference Petition and remitted that matter to the CEGAT for deciding the reference on merits. This position appears to be correct as is evident from a reading of the order dated 04.07.2013 in O.P.4866/1997 by the Kerala High Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
