9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals against Commissioner's orders. 2. Provisional release of goods subject to payment of duty and deposit. 3. Out-of-turn disposal of appeals. Analysis: Issue 1: Condonation of Delay The appellants filed appeals with a delay of 47 days against the Commissioner's orders, citing pursuing a wrong remedy initially. The learned JDR argued that despite specific guidance to file appeals within three months, the appellants opted for writ petitions and did not follow the appellate remedy even after a ruling by the High Court. However, considering the circumstances and the orders of the High Court and Supreme Court directing appellants to pursue appellate remedy, the delay was condoned for the ends of justice. Issue 2: Provisional Release of Goods Both appellants sought provisional release of goods subject to duty payment and deposit. The learned counsel referenced similar provisional releases by the Goa Commissionerate based on a High Court interim order. The JDR contended that Goa is not the port for importing cosmetics, citing High Court orders. After reviewing the evidence of similar provisional releases by the Commissionerate and lack of exceptional reasons for discrimination, the Tribunal granted provisional release to the appellants with conditions similar to other importers. Issue 3: Out-of-Turn Disposal of Appeals The appellants requested out-of-turn disposal of appeals, which was opposed by the JDR. The Tribunal noted a pending appeal by the department on the same issue before the High Court and decided to wait for the High Court's decision. Consequently, the applications for out-of-turn disposal were dismissed. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay in filing appeals, granted provisional release of goods with conditions, and dismissed the applications seeking out-of-turn disposal of appeals, awaiting the decision of the High Court on a related appeal.
|
