TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 111(d) and 111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and as to why the present petitioner during a period from 25.12.2021 to 26.02.2022 should not be held to be liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(h) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penalty should not be imposed under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. The Apex Court in the case of HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE (P) LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ 2014 (9) TMI 585 - SUPREME COURT ] in which it is held that when the statute provides for statutory appeal, the said remedy is to be availed by the litigating parties - In HAMEED KUNJU VERSUS NAZIM [ 2017 (7) TMI 1414 - SUPREME COURT ] the Apex Court held that any petition under Article 227 of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore passing the final order. (c) Alternatively, as an exception direct the appellate authority to consider any appeal filed by the petitioner waiving the pre-requisite of deposition of 7.5% of the amount of penalty. (d) Any other relief, as may be deemed fit may be granted to the petitioner. 2. Preliminary objection is raised by the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that impugned order is appealable under Section 129 of Customs Act, 1962 before the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an alternative remedy to file an appeal before the CESTAT, but the per-requisite of filing such an appeal is pre-deposit of 7.5% of the penalty l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear on the aforesaid dates, but finally on 08.02.2023 that is after a lapse of 5 days from the third hearing filed an application through an advocate to re-fix the personal hearing. But without affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 10.03.2023 was passed and penalty amounting to Rs. 8 Crores was imposed on the present petitioner under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the writ petition could not be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited vs. Union of India and others (2014) 15 SCC 44 in which it is held that when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
