9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appellant sought a Writ of Mandamus to cancel an order and a Writ of Certiorari to quash another order. - Dispute over entitlement to exemption from payment of duty based on certain notifications. - Interpretation of the Customs Act regarding extensions for notice periods. - Argument regarding the necessity of a notice before granting an extension. Detailed Analysis: The appellant filed a petition challenging the seizure of 33 bales of cotton fabric from their banker's godown. The Collector of Central Excise extended the notice period for confiscation, leading to an adjudication order confiscating the goods and imposing a fine. The appellant contended for exemption from duty, citing a Supreme Court decision in a similar case involving textile business and cooperative societies. The Supreme Court's interpretation of notifications favored the appellant's exemption claim, which was undisputed in the present case. However, a dispute arose over the Customs Act's provisions on extensions for notice periods, with the appellant arguing for a single extension post-six months, contrary to a recent Bench decision allowing multiple extensions if justified with a total period not exceeding six months. Furthermore, the appellant raised a procedural contention regarding the necessity of a notice before granting extensions, although no formal arguments were presented. The judgment highlighted the relevance of the Supreme Court decision in supporting the appellant's claim for exemption, ultimately allowing the appeal and setting aside the trial court's judgment. Each party was directed to bear its own costs. A writ of Mandamus was issued to prevent the enforcement of the confiscation order and to return the seized goods to the appellant by a specified deadline, emphasizing compliance with the directive.
|
