TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, the concession granted by the Department to the importer in the form of remission of duty, behind the back of the Steamer Agent, cannot now be taken advantage of by the Department. Therefore, even on merits, we find that the act of Department cannot be accepted. - No Penalty - Decided in favor of appellant. - Writ Appeal No.2445 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2016 - MR. V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND MR. N.KIRUBAKARAN, JJ For Appellant : Mr.K.Bijai Sundar For Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Senior Panel Counsel JUDGMENT V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J. This appeal arises out of the dismissal of a writ petition filed by a Steamer Agent, challenging the orders of three consecutive authorities eventually imposing a penalty under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order of adjudication, by an order dated 23.5.2002. 7. As against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Department filed appeals before CEGAT on 13.9.2002. Those appeals were not maintainable since the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was only revisable by the Government, under Section 129-BD of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the papers were returned by CEGAT for presentation to the appropriate authority. 8. Therefore, the Revenue filed a revision before the Government, obviously with a delay of about 111 days. 9. By a final order dated 13.7.2004, the Government of India not only condoned the delay, but also allowed the revision of the Revenue on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Supreme Court has concluded that Section 14 of the Limitation Act would apply to the proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the period during which the Revenue was prosecuting an appeal before a wrong forum, namely CEGAT, should be excluded while computing the period of limitation. Hence, we find the first question of law raised by the appellant to be answered against them. 13. Incidental to the first issue, Mr.K.Bijai Sundar, learned counsel for the appellant also raised a contention that the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned without any discussion by the Government. Though it appears to be so from paragraph 4 of the order of the Government dated 13.7.2004, we do not think that on the said ground, the order c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23.5.1995 and the order of adjudication was passed on 07.01.2000. 17. In the order of adjudication dated 07.01.2000, there is nothing to indicate as to what transpired from 23.5.1995 up to 07.01.2000, except for two dates. One is a letter dated 23.10.1999 where the appellant sought an injury to be inflicted upon them voluntarily, reminding the Department of the pendency of the show cause notice. The next date is 04.01.2000 when a personal hearing took place. Therefore, the order of adjudication certainly had not taken place within a reasonable period. Though the statute does not prescribe a period of limitation for passing an order of adjudication, the law is well settled that anything in respect of which no period of limitation is pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal order of adjudication itself shows that the appellant claimed to have discharged more quantity than what was entrusted to them. But, after arrival, a landing certificate was issued only in 1994 to the effect that there was short delivery. At the time when the landing certificate was issued on 30.9.1994, the vessel had already gone and a period of more than two years had passed and the importer had also cleared the cargo by then. Therefore, the concession granted by the Department to the importer in the form of remission of duty, behind the back of the Steamer Agent, cannot now be taken advantage of by the Department. Therefore, even on merits, we find that the act of Department cannot be accepted. 21. Hence, the writ appeal is all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
