9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the application for condonation of delay of 82 days in preferring the Statutory Appeal. 2. The facts in brief are as under :- a) The petitioner is engaged in business of export of cut and polished diamonds and accordingly, had sought clearance of cut and polished diamonds in eight different lots under Shipping Bill dated 16.01.2007 and corresponding export invoices. b) The petitioner found variation in the pieces per carat. After the panel inspection of the goods (diamonds), the Department found over valuation of such diamonds. Hence, a showcause notice dated 12.07.2007 came to be issued calling upon the petitioner to showcause as to why :- "a) The goods i.e. 1792.89 carats of Cut & Polished Diamonds, (out of which 1786.89 carats ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Rupees Twenty lacs only) on M/s C Mahendra Exports Limited [erstwhile M/s C Mahendra Exports (100% EOU)] under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) on Shri Suresh K Mehta, [Partner of erstwhile M/s C Mahendra Exports (100% EOU)] and now Director of M/s Mahendra Exports limited, under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962." d) Aggrieved by the order in original, passed by the Principal Commissioner Customs at Ahmedabad, the petitioner preferred an Appeal which was inwarded on 13.12.2016. Such an application was accompanied with a delay condonation application as there was a delay of 82 days in preferring such an Appeal. e) The Tribunal not accepting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrest prior to such date. 5. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, it appears that the order in original is dated 08.03.2016 which was received by hand delivery by the Advocate of the petitioner on 22.06.2016. The Appeal was required to be filed on 22.09.2016, whereas the same is inwarded on 13.12.2016. It has come on record that the petitioner was arrested on 22.06.2016 and was enlarged on bail on 24.08.2016. The Court finds that such an explanation was very much on the record of CESTAT in the form of Affidavits. The Court therefore, finds that the explanation more particularly, the fact that the petitioner was facing criminal prosecution and was actually detained for the period mentioned hereinabove was a valid explan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
