9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR, for the Respondents. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - This miscellaneous application was argued by Shri S.N. Kantawala the ld. Advocate. 2. In the proceedings leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal certain goods imported by the appellants were seized by the Customs authorities. At the request of the importers, pending the completion of proceedings, the seized good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rantee was filed by the applicants persuant to the agreement between them and the Commissioner for release of the seized goods provisionally, which is an administrative action. These goods were subsequently adjudged liable to confiscation by the ld. Collector he has also chosen to levy a penalty on the applicants. The order is final until it is modified or set aside in the proceedings before the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. We have seen the cited judgment. The facts are entirely dissimilar. The balance of convinence stood in the favour of the applicant before the Court since the last order namely that of the Collector (Appeals) was in the applicant's favour. In the case before us the order of the Commissioner is against the applicants. The circumstances being different, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
