New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (4) TMI 954 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2015 (4) TMI 954 - DELHI HIGH COURT - 2015 (322) E.L.T. 70 (Del.) - Seizure of goods - promissory estoppel - the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing that the respondent was entitled to verify the authenticity of the documents submitted by the appellant and on the basis of which the seizure / detention order was vacated; that thus the endeavour of the respondent to verify the documents provided by the appellant cannot be interdicted and rejecting the contention that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t qua the doubts entertained by the Customs Authorities and for eliciting the response, the doubts entertained have necessarily to be stated. - Though the senior counsel for the appellant at the beginning of the hearing had also handed over written submissions and insisted on reading the same but in view of having confined the appeal to the aforesaid contention only, need is not felt to refer thereto. We may also record that the counsel for the respondent in his counter affidavit supported by co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Abhijit Bhattacharyya And Mr Chandrachur Bhattacharyya, Advs. For the Respondent : Mr S K Dubey With Mr Rajmangal Kumar, Ms Sushma Yadav And Mr Vikram Singh, Advs. ORDER Rajiv Sahai Endlaw,J. 1. On 2nd February, 2015 when this appeal had first come up before us, the following order was passed:- "LPA No.52/2015 & CM No.1832 & CM No.1834/2015 (stay) & (addl. documents). 1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 24th December, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the writ petition from which appeal arises impugning the letters dated 15th November, 2014 and 21st November, 2014 of the respondent asking the appellant to appear before the respondent. The respondent claims to have so summoned the appellant in exercise of powers under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 4. It is the admitted position that the appellant is being so summoned since January, 2014 and has appeared before the respondent on a number of occasions. 5. The appellant filed the writ petition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

submitted by the appellant and on the basis of which the seizure / detention order was vacated; that thus the endeavour of the respondent to verify the documents provided by the appellant cannot be interdicted and rejecting the contention that the respondent is estopped from verifying the documents. 7. The senior counsel for the appellant, before us also has pegged his case only on the plea of promissory estoppel. 8. The said plea is clearly misconceived as held by the learned Single Judge also. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o the senior counsel for the appellant, he sought a passover to study this aspect. 9. However after passover, the senior counsel for the appellant again took up the plea of estoppel contending that the order vacating the order of detention / seizure is an executive order. 10. We are unable to agree. We as such asked the counsel for the respondent appearing on advance notice to take us through the scheme of the Act. 11. Our attention has been invited to Section 110(2) which provides that if no no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

om passing any order confiscating the goods but would still be entitled to impose penalty. On our enquiry, whether any time limit is provided for issuing any notice of imposing penalty, the counsel for the respondent states that no such time limit has been provided and refers to Jeevraj Vs. Collector of Customs (1997) 8 SCC 519 laying down that Section 124 does not lay down any period within which notice is required to be given. 12. We are however not convinced. Section 125 provides for payment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rtunity to the counsels, no clarity is emerging. 14. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the counsel for the respondent. Since the writ petition was dismissed in limine, the respondent had no opportunity to submit a counter affidavit. The same be filed within two weeks, particularly addressing the aforesaid question. Rejoinder if any within one week thereafter. 15. Renotify on 4th March, 2015." 2. The respondent has thereafter filed a counter affidavit and to which a rejoinder has been file .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t. 4. The senior counsel for the appellant after passover contended that though the detention on 29th October, 2012, 30th October, 2012 and 31st October, 2012 of the goods of the appellant, was seizure thereof within the meaning of Section 110 of the Customs Act but the said order of seizure was revoked by the Customs Authorities themselves on 6th November, 2012, 9th November, 2012 and 20th November, 2012. When we enquired from the senior counsel, the provision which permits revocation of an ord .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ies, in the matter of passing an order under Section 110, are required to act quasi judicially. 5. Faced therewith the senior counsel for the appellant stated that the only point he is urging in this appeal is that the notice dated 21st November, 2014 issued to the appellant under Section 108 of the Customs Act contains a finding against the appellant and which is not permissible in law in a show cause notice. 6. Though we doubt very much that the said contention arises from the pleadings in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n of watches detained under various panchnamas. Further your attention is invited towards the undertaking dated 21.11.2014 in response to summons dated 15.11.2014 wherein it was undertaken to depute your authorized representative for verification of the documents submitted by you at the time of vacation of detention of watches. In furtherance to above please find enclosed herewith list of watches wherein the documents submitted by you does not carry mention of serial numbers of watches and watch .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version