9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hyderabad Customs Commissionerate in O.R. No. 77/2017/2017-Adjn Cus, dated 12.02.2020 and with a further direction to respondent No. 2, to refund an amount of Rs. 73,52,985/- collected towards customs duty and in addition, refund of Rs. 3,26,547/- being interest thereon, along with further interest on the said amount as demanded by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 12.02.2020. 2. Heard Smt. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Bokara Sapna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Sri Manu, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 3. The petitioner herein is engaged in the business of gold and gold jewellery and is into the business of export of gold ornaments. As per the petitioner, they are required to pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rket. The officers of the respondent No. 3 said to have conducted a search in the premises of the petitioner's establishment to enquire about the export shipments and found that the petitioner had mislead the officers of the respondent No. 3 by producing fake documents showing that the exports have been made. 5. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.07.2017 for alleged diversion of 25 kgs of duty free gold purchased by the petitioner from respondent No. 4 without payment of customs duty. That from the gold ornaments manufactured from the same, it was sold in the local market and at the same time, the gold ornaments were exported from the gold purchased by the petitioner from the local market, instead of buying from the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 114 AA of the Customs Act with yet another penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the Power of Attorney holder, Sri Sanjay Agarwal under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act and a like amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- again under Section 114AA of the Customs Act. 7. It is these orders, which are challenged with a further request for refund of the amount already deposited by the petitioner. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1 and also a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Ors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has an efficacious alternative remedy. 9. Once when the Division Bench of this High Court in the dispute between the same parties has taken a view that the impugned order being an appealable order, the writ petition would not be maintainable and this Court is inclined to take the same view of the writ petition being not maintainable. 10. Another aspect which needs consideration is the inordinate delay that has occurred on the part of the petitioner in assailing the impugned order dated 12.02.2020. Though the impugned order is the one which was passed on 12.02.2020, the present writ petition has been filed only on 21.06.2023 i.e. after more than three (3) years time. Since, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
