TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . There was no indication that the petitioner trust is liable to pay the fine of ₹ 7.25 lacs in lieu of confiscation. In absence of any proposal in the show cause notice for imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation relatable to the petitioner and in absence of any directions contained in the order-inoriginal that such fine would be borne by the petitioner, it was simply not open for the department to seek recovery thereof from the petitioner. - Decided in favor of petitioner. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7301 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2016 - Akil Kureshi And A. Y. Kogje, JJ. For the Petitioner : MR PARESH M DAVE, ADVOCATE For the Respondent : MRS VD NANAVATI, ADVOCATE JUDGMENT ( Per : Honourable Mr. Just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the DRA, which were part of the goods imported and as the goods were not available, fine in lieu of confiscation was imposed. The order also contained other directions. But, it seems that this particular part of the order imposing fine in lieu of confiscation was not acceptable to the petitioners and hence, an appeal was preferred before the CESTAT. Though in appeal, a prayer was made to set aside the redemption fine, but it appears that the same is not addressed to by the CESTAT. So far as the petitioners are concerned, the penalty imposed was set aside. 2.4 It is after the order of CESTAT that the Department issued notice first on 04.03.2015 and thereafter on 30.03.2015 calling upon the petitioner to pay up the redemption fine. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1962. However these goods are not available for confiscation . Neither in the body of the show cause notice, nor in the ultimate proposal noted above, there is anything to suggest that the petitioner trust was called upon to state why for non-availability of the goods for confiscation, redemption fine should not be imposed. 5. In the order-in-original dated 29.4.2005 issued by the Commissioner, in this respect, he provided as under:- (b) I absolutely confiscate the goods of 22 bales which could not be located and seized by the DRI, which were part of the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.8836 dated-25.09.2001, having approximately value of ₹ 15.26 lacs. However, since the goods are not available, I impost fine of ₹ 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
