9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Impleadment of M/s. Lombard North Central PLC as a respondent in the department's appeal. 2. Conflict of interest between M/s. Lombard North Central PLC and Mr. Abdul Hassan Mohamed Khan. 3. Prayer for imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle. 4. Disposal of appeals out-of-turn based on the live issue of re-export of the car. Analysis: 1. The judgment revolves around the application filed by M/s. Lombard North Central PLC seeking impleadment as a respondent in the department's appeal. The applicant expressed that the pendency of Mr. Abdul Hassan Mohamed Khan's appeal is detrimental to their interests as it hinders the re-export of a vehicle that belongs to them. The Commissioner's order allowed re-export of the car without imposing a fine or penalty on the applicant. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, decided to implead the applicant as an additional respondent in the department's appeal No. C/1205/08. This decision was based on the fact that the department's prayer for redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle could adversely affect the applicant's interests. 2. The judgment addresses the objection raised by Mr. Abdul Hassan Mohamed Khan's counsel regarding the impleadment of M/s. Lombard North Central PLC as a respondent in the appeal. The importer's counsel argued that there is no conflict of interest between the importer and the applicant since the importer had challenged only the penalty imposed by the Commissioner. However, the Tribunal found that the department's appeal, which sought redemption fine, could impact the applicant's position, justifying their impleadment as an additional respondent. 3. The Tribunal highlighted that the department's appeal primarily sought the imposition of a redemption fine in place of confiscation of the vehicle. This aspect was considered prejudicial to the interests of M/s. Lombard North Central PLC, prompting the Tribunal to allow the application for impleadment. The decision was made in the interest of justice, considering the implications of the department's prayer on the applicant's situation. 4. Additionally, the judgment referenced a previous order by the Bench, noting that there was no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's order at that stage. It was observed that the issue of re-export of the car was live, prompting the appeals to be prioritized for disposal out-of-turn. As a result, the Tribunal directed both appeals to be scheduled for final hearing on a specific date, emphasizing the need for the additional respondent to obtain certified copies of interim orders passed in the department's appeal. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues addressed, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision-making process, ensuring a thorough understanding of the legal complexities involved.
|
