9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of asbestos cement products and also deals in import and resale of raw asbestos fiber. The petitioner imported raw fiber asbestos from Hongkong which arrived at Mundra port. The goods were cleared on or around 20.08.2010. According to the petitioner, such goods were in transit for interstate sale when on 20.11.2011, the same were intercepted by the checkpost authorities at Shyamakhyali, Kachchh. The said authorities would not release the goods unless the petitioner deposited the entire duty with penalty at the rate of 150% thereon. The petitioner under compulsion, was made to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,24,256/which comprised of the duty and penalty at the rate of 150% of the basic duty. The author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision for collecting duty and the petitioner having evaded such duty, demanding penalty was legal. The order of appellate authority deleting penalty was therefore not correct. 6. After hearing the petitioner, the revisional authority passed an order dated 23.04.2015, in which, she set aside the appellate order only on the ground that the communication dated 26.11.2010 was not an appealable order. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved by the action of the departmental authorities, he should have preferred appeal against the order dated 04.12.2010. 7. Against such order of revisional authority, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order confirmed the decision of the revisional authority. Hence, this peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the higher authority. This communication lacks all characteristics of quasijudicial order of an assessment. 9. If at all, it was the communication dated 26.11.2010, in which, the duty and penalty were assessed which could be treated as an appealable order. If the department holds a belief that this was not an order of assessment at all, the respondents had no authority to retain the said sum of Rs. 10,24,256/deposited by the petitioner under compulsion in the guise of finalized duty and liability of the petitioner. 10. We may recall, in the notice for revision, the revisional authority raised two grounds. One was of the maintainability of the appeal and the other was on the merits of the appellate order. The revisional authority havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
