9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing". Petitioners No.2 and 3 are partners of Krishna Clearing. Petitioners No.4 and 5 are its employees. The Customs Department had issued a common show cause notice to all the petitioners and one CONCOR CFS, a Customs clearing agent, why various penalties under the Customs Act be not imposed on them for the alleged acts of smuggling of cigarettes. The joint Commissioner of Customs by order dated 29.04.2015 dropped the proceedings initiated under the notice dated 28.04.2014. 3. It appears that, for whatever reason, the Department preferred appeal against the said order-in-original only against Krishna Clearing. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, took cognizance of such appeal only qua the partnership firm. To this aspect of the matter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) Truck Trailers bearing Registration No.GJ 12-Z-4455 (having valued as Rs. 9,50,000/-), GJ-12-Y-8001 (having valued as Rs. 6,00,000/-), GJ-12Y-7002 (having valued as Rs. 6,00,000/-) & GJ-12W-7606 (having valued as Rs. 3,50,000/-) are liable for confiscation under section 115 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (iv) CONCOR, Gandhidham and M/s.Krishna Clearing Agency, Gandhidham are liable for penalty under section 112(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 45 ibid and Regulation Goods Imported (Conditions of Transhipment) Regulation, 1995 and Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. (v) Shri K.M.Thakkar, Pankaj Thakkar, both partners of M/s.Krishna Clearing Agency, Gandhidham and Shri Jitesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellate Commissioner. His order was, therefore, illegal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel Ms.Vaibhavi Nanavaty for the Department firstly contended that, against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), statutory appeal lies before the Tribunal. She further submitted that the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is a speaking order and, therefore, calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 6. With respect to petitioner No.1-Krishna Clearing, we are not inclined to entertain this petition in view of availability of alternative statutory remedy. We would relegate petitioner No.1 to such remedy before the Tribunal. If such an appeal is filed latest by 10.02.2016, considering the fact that Krishna Clearing was before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
