9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt reads as under : "On the material placed on record, and the amended Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 it appears to us that apparently the offence which is alleged to have been committed is a bailable offence and thus the Magistrate has rightly granted bail to the Appellant. In view of this, the order of the High Court is set aside." 2.It is also stated that Punjab and Haryana High Court in its order dated 6th March, 2006 in case of Kulbhushan Goyal v. Joint Commissioner of Customs in Crl. Misc. No. 71789-M/05 also held that offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of Customs Act,1962 is a bailable offence. This Court in Sita Ram v. Customs, 2005 (188) E.L.T. 478 (Del.) granted bail to the applicant on the ground that the offence un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per incuriam. It was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court had already stayed the order of Mumbai High Court holding that the offence was bailable, in Criminal Appeal No. 189/2006. It was stated that in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in A.R. Antuley v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602, if the decision is per incuriam, the Court should ignore it. Similar observation was made by Supreme Court in West Bengal v. Tarun K. Roy, (2004) 1 SCC 347. The Supreme Court has yet to decide the issue if the offence was bailable or not in Criminal Appeal No. 189/2006. It is further pointed out that for the first time Mumbai High Court in case of Subhash Chaudhary v. Deepak Jyala and Ors., 2005 (179) E.L.T. 532 (Bom.) = 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee cases. In view of the fact that the SLP against the Mumbai High Court is pending and the decision of the Mumbai High Court holding that the offence is bailable has been stayed by Supreme Court and the order relied upon by the applicant was passed solely on the facts and the circumstances of the case, I consider that this Court cannot take a different view from what it has been already taken. The petitioner was at liberty to approach Supreme Court if he so desired against the order dated 23rd July, 2007 of this Court. The petitioner did not approach the Supreme Court. 5.Considering the merits of the case, the petitioner made an application for compounding of the offence. Order for compounding of offence was passed by Chief Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that petitioner did stupidity in filing the compounding application. The applicant was not obliged to compound the offence and pay the hefty compounding fee as asked by the Chief Commissioner. 6.Reverting to the facts the petitioner floated a proprietorship firm in the name of Pioneer Soap and Chemicals and obtained a Central Excise Registration Number for manufacturing of washing soap. He applied for import of non-edible crude palm oil used for manufacturing of washing soap which was granted by the concerned authorities. The import of crude palm oil for manufacturing of washing soap is allowed at concessional duty of 20% as against the normal duty of 65%. Applicant availed this concessional duty and imported palm oil. It was found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
