9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a direction upon the respondent/Customs Department, to return the Indian Currencies to the tune of Rs. 19,00,000/-, in terms of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal-I) in Order-in-Appeal, dated 29.01.2016, on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and personal penalty of Rs. 75,000/-. 3. The petitioner was a passenger, proceeding towards Singapore, and he was found in possession of Indian currencies of Rs. 19,00,000/-, without declaration. The currencies were confiscated, in terms of Section 113 (d) (e) and (h) of the Customs Act, 1962 (henceforth referred to as, Act) and allowed for redemption on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 7,50,000/- under Section 125 of the Act and personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, in the case of (Shri Munivela Bharathi Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (I), and another), in W.P.Nos.26496 to 26498 of 2016. In the said Writ Petition, identical contention was raised by the Department, stating that the Revision Petition is pending as against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals-), and therefore, the Court should not direct redemption of the gold bars in the said case. This Court did not accept the said contention, since the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case of (NVR Forgings Vs. Union of India) reported in (2016) 335 ELT 679, has held that revision by the Central Government entrusted to a joint Secretary level Officer equal to Commissioner was not empowered to pass revisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. As mentioned above, in the case of NVR Forgings (referred to supra), the Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana has set aside the order passed by the Revisional Authority, who is an officer in the cadre of Joint Secretary equivalent to the Commissioner of Police. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:- " In the present case, the impugned order was passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India, who was also Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. Thus, the order-in-appeal as well as revisionary order had been passed by the Officers of the same rank, which is not permissible as per law. According to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, it may be noticed that the said de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
