TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the order is called for - application dismissed. - MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.11229 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2021 - Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ And Ninala Jayasurya J. For the Petitioner : K Siddharth Rao For the Respondent : Harinath N (Asst Solicitor General), M V J K Kumar (SR SC For CEC SER TAX) ORDER I.A.No.2 of 2021 Heard Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Abhishek A. Rastogi and Mr. K. Siddharth Rao learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, Mr. N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent Nos.1 2 and Mr. M.V.J.K. Kumar, learned senior standing counsel for Customs, appearing for respondent Nos.3 4. On 30.06.2021, this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder at (i) above shall be deemed to be withdrawn with effect from the date of such payment. (iii) I impose a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on M/s VCTPL under Regulation 12 (8) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations 2009. This order is issued without prejudice to any other action that may be taken/proposed to be taken in future against M/s. VCTPL or any other person concerned under Customs Act, 1962 and/or any other law for the time being in force in the Republic of India, including recovery of outstanding arrears of cost recovery charges payable as per demand notices issued from time to time. The said order was passed on the basis of a showcause notice dated 05.02.2020 issued under Regulation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the letter dated 18.07.2014. However, the contention advanced by the petitioner that no other private container terminal operating under the aegis of the Major Ports was being made to bear the cost recovery charges, which was requested to be looked into by the Board, was not even adverted to. In the meantime, there was a development in the sense that the Regulations had come into play. By virtue of Section 5(2) of the Regulations, cost of the custom officers posted at a custom area, on cost recovery basis, by the Commissioner, was made applicable and such payment was required to be made at such rates and in the manner prescribed unless specifically exempted by an order of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Regulations is in issue, we are inclined to entertain this petition. Issue notice. No formal steps are called for as the respondents are duly represented. However, extra copies be furnished. Considering the matter in its entirety, as an interim measure, we provide that the impugned Order-in- Original dated 01.03.2021 passed by respondent No.3- Principal Commissioner shall remain suspended subject to the petitioner, without prejudice to its rights and contentions as advanced in this petition, deposits before the Principal Commissioner 50% of the amount of ₹ 15,88,36,561/- within a period of two months from today. Registry will list this case after two months. In the meantime, pleadings may be exchanged. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted a significant sum of ₹ 179 crores till August 2021 and is required to deploy a further sum of ₹ 59 crores within the period of next six months. The applicant/petitioner is also required to create debt reserve account of approximately ₹ 40 crores which shall be placed under lien towards the debt/borrowing of ₹ 713 crores. The applicant/petitioner has free fixed deposits and cash balances of only ₹ 64.57 crores as on 31.07.2021 and, therefore, the applicant/petitioner is required to generate further liquidity of ₹ 34.43 crores in the next 5-6 months. He further submits that the impugned Order-in-Original dated 01.03.2021 is appealable under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, the 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-Original dated 01.03.2021 and, therefore, no case is made out for modifying the aforesaid order. It is submitted by him that if at all the applicant/petitioner was aggrieved by the aforesaid interim order directing deposit of 50% of the amount demanded, it ought to have availed remedy as available in law. Mr. N. Harinath also endorses the above submission of Mr. M.V.J.K. Kumar. We have extended our consideration to the submissions advanced by Mr. Chidambaram as well as Mr. M.V.J.K. Kumar and Mr. N. Harinath. This Court on due consideration of the matter, also taking note of Section 129 of the 1962 Act, by order dated 30.06.2021, suspended the impugned Order-in-Original dated 01.03.2021 subject to the applicant/petitioner, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
