9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : K.S. Dilipsinhji, Member (T)]. - M/s. Mekaster Private Limited have filed this appeal against the Order No. S/10-1194/A/83ACC/ S/9-35/83 A, dated 14-10-1985 of the Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Bombay. The appeal is against the Collector s order under which he ordered levy of a sum of Rs. 5,30,772/- in terms of the bond executed by the Appellants for submitting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Their further application to extend the time beyond 28-2-1986 was rejected. Even today the Appellants have not complied with the order of the Tribunal on their stay application. Therefore a notice was issued to the Appellants asking them to show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed from non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act. 2. On behalf of the Appellants, Advocate Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sadarangani submitted that the amount demanded under the Collector s order was not in the nature of a penalty. 3. We have examined the submissions made on both the sides. Before we consider the arguments further, it is necessary to go briefly into the facts of the case. M/s. Mekaster Private Limited imported 20 cases of Hand tools valued at Rs. 5,30,772/- under Bill of Entry No. 2716/2 dated 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act for levying a penalty. He has not done so and hence it cannot be argued that the Collector s order is in the nature of a penalty leviable under Section 112. On the other hand, it is seen that Section 143 of the Customs Act provides for allowing import of the goods on execution of bonds in certain cases. The bond executed by the Appellants in the present case is one such instance Under sub-sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
