9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red within the validity period of the bonds. Therefore the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, issued an order dated 23-10-2000, demanding duty of Rs. 2,27,050/- under Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further interest as applicable was also demanded. A penalty of Rs. 12,000/- was imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals). Before the Commissioner (Appeals), it was argued that pending the appeal, the goods should not have been disposed of by the department. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants themselves had accepted duty liability under the provisions of the Customs Act. The fact that the goods were disposed of even when the appeal is pending would not dilute the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se No. 145, wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has observed, Justice is a virtue which transcends all carriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. The order of the Court should not be prejudicial to anyone. Rule of Stare decisis is adhered for consistency but it is not as inflexible in Administrative Law as in Public Law. Even the law bends before justice . He said in this case without the knowledge of the appellant the goods have been sold, much against the provisions of Section 72(2) of the Customs Act. As per Section 72(2), the notice to the owner before selling the goods is mandatory. In this case, there was no notice to the appellant. In view of the denial of principles of natural justice, the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erent. If the appellant is aggrieved over the sale of goods without issue of notice to him he should agitate against the order of the disposal before the appellate authority. What is before us is not the disposal order of the warehoused goods by the department. The impugned orders relate purely to the demand of duty on warehoused goods whose warehousing expiry period is over. Prima facie, there is no infirmity in the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal. We are inclined to uphold the above orders except the penalty under Section 117. We find that the penalty is not warranted and set aside the same. While parting we would like to observe that it is for the appellant to agitate before the Commissioner (Appeals) the order of disposal of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
