TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the petitioner in the said writ petition. Hence, W.P.M.P. No. 20808 of 2016 is dismissed. Garnishee order - main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents did not follow the procedure prescribed by Section 110A of the Customs Act, for the provisional release of the goods - Held that: - Once a demand has attained finality, there can be no challenge to the method of recovery, unless the method of recovery itself is not, in accordance with the procedure prescribed. We do not find any procedural infirmity in the method of recovery now resorted to, by the respondents. Therefore, the second writ petition, W.P. No. 3570 of 2016, is also devoid of merits and, hence, the same is dismissed. - W.P.M.P. No. 20808 of 2016 in W.P. No. 76 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the exemption from Customs duty. 5. However, subsequently, the condition of 100% bank guarantee was deleted by an amendment to the Advance Authorization. 6. The petitioner, pursuant to the Advance Authorization, manufactured the intermediate products and supplied them to the ordering company, which was found to be in the Domestic Tariff Area. But, since the ordering company was entitled to import the intermediate goods duty free, for the manufacture of final products intended for export, the petitioner cleared the goods without payment of Central Excise. 7. However, the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a letter, dated 21-5-2009, calling upon the petitioner to submit the notification, under which the intermediate goods were c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration (yet to be numbered) and another in W.P. M.P. No. 20808 of 2016 for condoning the delay of 745 days in seeking restoration. 12. In the meantime, the Department issued a garnishee order on 10-12-2015 to the Banks, in which the petitioner holds accounts. Challenging the said garnishee order, the petitioner has come up with the next writ petition, W.P. No. 3570 of 2016. 13. Heard Mr. V. Gopalakrishna Gokhalay, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned special standing counsel for Central Excise and Customs appearing for the respondents. 14. In the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay, the Managing Director of the petitioner compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of Section 35F. The order passed on 21-11-2011 was an automatic corollary of the failure of the petitioner to comply with the conditional order, dated 8-8-2011. The conditional order, dated 8-8-2011, is not under challenge. It has attained finality. Therefore, there is no way, the final order, dated 21-11-2011, can be interfered with, even while retaining the conditional order, dated 8-8-2011. Therefore, there is no point in restoring W.P. No. 7685 of 2012, as no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the said writ petition. Hence, W.P.M.P. No. 20808 of 2016 is dismissed. 18. Coming to the garnishee order, the main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents did not follow the procedure prescribed by Section 110A of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
