9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bond shall not be invoked and enforced for a period of four weeks from the date of service of the adjudication order to enable the petitioners to file appeal or take steps to challenge the said order in accordance with law. The adjudication order as required, should be a speaking order dealing with the contentions and the pleas raised by the petitioners. Petitioners are also given liberty to file additional or further response along with documents within two weeks from the date copy of this order is received. - 3739 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2011 - Chief Justice and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ Appellant Represented by: Mr. Sushil Kumar, adv Respondent Represented by: Mr Mukesh Anand, Adv JUDGEMENT The petitioner no.1-Air Trave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03 1130/2003 1.10.2003 Rs. 35,36,000 Rs. 63,00,000 0530134159 12.05.2003 1131/2003 1.10.2003 Rs. 35,10,000 Rs. 35,36,000 3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner no.1 has challenged and made prayers for quashing the two show cause notices both dated 3rd May, 2010 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tughlakabad, under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) and for quashing the proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioner no.1 has also prayed for return of the four bank guarantees and cancellation of the bonds given by the petitioner nos.1 and 2 to the Customs Department at the time of release of the cars. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 6 of 2009 dismissing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs assailing Order dated 16th December, 2008 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in respect of the two cars which were imported under licence dated 17th September, 2002. 6. Department of Customs has contested the present petition and has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that the role of DGFT and Department of Customs is distinct and governed by different provisions of law. The licences were issued by DGFT but operationalised by Customs for which separate notification is issued under the law. As per Clause (ii) of para 4 of the Explanation given to Notification no.44/2002-cus. it is submitted, that the Customs Department has full r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stage. Customs Department has made certain allegations and the petitioner no.1 has refuted and denied the said allegations. Facts and factual matrix of the case have to be gone into, examined and verified. Each import under the EPCG licence is a separate and a distinct import. Each case has to be examined on its own facts. Service provider may have fulfilled the obligations imposed in respect of one EPCG licence but may not have fulfilled the obligations in respect of another licence. This will depend upon the factual matrix of each case. Moreover, the judgment dated 3rd August, 2010 was on an appeal filed by the Customs Department on a question of law. Of course, the petitioner no.1 is entitled to rely upon the legal ratio in the case of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company or on their behalf, shall be released. In case the stand of the petitioner no.1 is not accepted, the bank guarantees and the bond shall not be invoked and enforced for a period of four weeks from the date of service of the adjudication order to enable the petitioners to file appeal or take steps to challenge the said order in accordance with law. The adjudication order as required, should be a speaking order dealing with the contentions and the pleas raised by the petitioners. Petitioners are also given liberty to file additional or further response along with documents within two weeks from the date copy of this order is received. Hearing will be also given to the petitioner no.1. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
