Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (10) TMI 863 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (10) TMI 863 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Implementation of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I) - concealment of gold in baggage - confiscated gold was given an option to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and penalty - quantum of fine and penalty reduced by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I) and this order seeks to be implemented by petitioner for release of gold - Held that: - The petitioner is directed to remit the entire amount as ordered to be paid as red .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

his order. On compliance of the above direction, the Department is granted 30 days time to release the seized goods for re-exportation. Within this 30 days which shall be computed from the date of furnishing bank guarantee and bond, it is open to the Department to secure orders from the Revisional Authority - petition disposed off - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.No.28382 of 2016 & W.M.P.No.24500 of 2016 - Dated:- 30-9-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.T.Chezhiyan For th .....

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 declare the gold, she was carrying in the Indian Customs Declaration Form. On check being done, it was found that she had concealed the gold in her baggage and which was seized, proceedings were initiated and the Adjudicating Officer, vide order dated 18.04.2015 adjudicated the case and order confiscating the gold bars, jewellery etc., with the option for redemption for re-export on payment of fine of ₹ 17,25,000/- in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed personal pen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the order, since in spite of several representations, it has not been implemented and more than one year had passed. 5. While the situation remain thus, the Department filed an Appeal as against the order passed by Adjudicating Officer and the same was heard out of turn by the Commissioner of Appeals and an order was passed on 06.08.2015, rejecting the Appeal. The submission of the Revenue is that as against both the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Revisions have been f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eal would cause prejudice to the Revenue. This argument is far fetch since as on date there are three orders which are against the Department, one by the Adjudicating Officer and two orders by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) 7. That apart, the Department appears to have not been diligent in following up the matter by promptly filing the Revision Petition. One more contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Revisional Authority does not have jurisdiction as he i .....

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