TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal is available at Chandigarh, therefore, there seems to be no difficulty for the petitioners to approach the Tribunal. The petitioners are relegated to file their appeals before the CESTAT, Chandigarh and if the appeals are filed within one month the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order, the learned Tribunal shall preferably within next six months decide the appeals in accordance with law without going into the question of limitation - petition disposed off. - CWP No.18990 of 2015(O&M) - - - Dated:- 5-9-2019 - MR JASWANT SINGH AND MR LALIT BATRA, JJ. For The Petitioners : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Sourabh Goyal, Advocate And Mr. Sunish Bin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed to be rejected in terms of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules 2007. In the show cause notice, the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation and penalty under Section 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 was also proposed. The show cause notice P-3 culminated into passing of Order-in-Original dated 09.01.2014 ( P-7 ), whereby Adjudicating Authority imposed fine and penalty upon the petitioners. The Adjudicating Authority during course of adjudication allowed cross examination of witnesses including shopkeepers i.e. Partap Singh, Proprietor of M/s Kaysons Garments, Ludhiana and Dharmesh Sharma proprietor of M/s Nisha Collections from whom Market Inquiry was conducted in their cross examination categorica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the said Market Inquiry Report be got examined from the CFSL or any Judicial Official to enquire into the authenticity of the said report subject to the petitioners bearing the costs of inquiry as also payment of exemplary costs in case the contentions of the petitioners is found to be incorrect. 7 . Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate for the DRI contends that the Market Inquiry Report is not the basis of the impugned Appellate Order and the petitioners have alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Tribunal/CESTAT, Chandigarh Bench, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 8 . On being confronted with the fact that the impugned order dated 07.08.2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
