9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be condoned under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Tribunal has observed that they do not have power of condonation of delay beyond the period specified. In view of the said position, order dated 29th April, 2011 is in accordance with law. The present appeal was filed on 5th October, 2011 challenging order dated 2nd February, 2009 [2009 (237) E.L.T. 41 (Tri. Del.)] is clearly barred by limitation. The appellant has not filed any application seeking condonation of delay. The appeal can be dismissed on this ground alone. We notice that as per order dated 2nd February, 2009 the tribunal has directed return of gold weighing 2 kgs. to the respondent upon payment of redemption fine etc. The said duly/penalty/fine was deposited o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Eventually, that led to release of 2kgs of gold to the said Mr. Mohit Thakore. 3. On 25-7-2000, in the peculiar circumstances, the appeal preferred by Mr. Dinesh Khindria (the brother of the respondent/assessee), was dismissed. Thereafter, an application was preferred by Mr Dinesh Khindria (the brother of the respondent/assessee) on 10-11-2002, for rectification on the ground that there was a complete reversal of the operative order as announced by the Tribunal itself. On 22-3-2004, the said rectification application was dismissed for non-prosecution. Against the said order, the respondent/assessee filed a Writ Petition before this court. This court by order dated 4-12-2004, found that the Tribunal had erred in dismissing the recti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 25-7-2000 by which the earlier appeal was rejected. It was contended that since that order was in force and this Court had not intervened till 2008, the gold was actually disposed of on 3-2-2006. It was submitted that therefore, the Tribunal's impugned order is incapable of compliance and if at all the respondents would be entitled to the price of gold as on the date of importation. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent/assessee points out that the stand taken by the revenue would amount to grave injustice inasmuch as, the appeal preferred by the other importer Mr. Mohit Thakore was allowed on merits and the gold was released upon payment of fine and duty. Since, this course of action took place as far as back in 1993-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was in the light of these circumstances that by the impugned order of 2-2-2009, the Tribunal allowed redemption on payment of duty and directed release of goods. That the Department choose to dispose of the gold on 3-2-2006, in the opinion of this Court cannot alter the circumstances or be claimed in equity to release the revenue from its obligations in law. In these circumstances, the approach indicated by the Court on 28-10-2003, i.e., directing that the revenue should pay the price of the gold as on 9-4-2009 is fair and reasonable. This Court notices that in para 7.3 of the impugned order the Tribunal noticed that the approximate value of the gold as on 9-2-2009 was more than Rs. 29 lakhs. This has not been seriously disputed by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
