9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 436 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2010 - Soumitra Pal, J. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri P.K. Dutta and S. Banerjee , Advocates, for the Petitioner. S/Shri T.K. Hazra and K.K. Maity, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Let the affidavit-in-opposition, the reply thereto and the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed be kept on record. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner No. 1, a company under the Companies Act, 1956, and the petitioner No. 2, one of its directors, have prayed for a direction upon the customs authorities to act in terms of the Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS/CKP/631/2009 dated 10th November 2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). 3. Facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter, the impugned order is set aside and the case remanded to the lower authority for decision afresh. The lower authority shall get the remnant samples tested. On receipt of the re-test report, the lower authority shall decide the case afresh. Since the matter has been pending for last so many years, the lower authority is thus directed that the re-testing of the remnant samples should be positively done within a period of three months and the de novo order, if any, should be passed within a month thereafter. Further, in terms of the Hon'ble High Court order, the bank guarantee was required to be kept alive till the decision and communication of the order by the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, the bank guarantee is required to be returned to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities to comply with the directions passed by the appellate authority to retest the samples and to return the bank guarantee has been replied to. Moreover, since the revisional application under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short "the Act") was filed beyond the statutory period of three months, unless the application for condonation of delay is allowed, the revisional application cannot be treated to be on record. Relying on the judgments in Prabir Chandra Ghose v. Union of India : 1992 (62) E.L.T. 713 (Cal), Pankaj Guljarilal Gupta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta : 1995 (75) E.L.T. 47 (Cal.) and in Union of India v. Ramlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd : 1991(55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) it has been submitted that mere filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess order is passed thereon, the revisional application cannot be treated to be in order. It is well settled in view of the judgments in Prabir Chandra Ghose v. Union of India (supra), Pankaj Guljarilal Gupta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta (supra) and in Union of India v. Ramlakshi Finance Corporation (supra), that mere filing of revisional application cannot mean an automatic stay of the order passed by the authorities. Therefore, in the instant application as the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 had failed and neglected to give reply to the letters requesting to retest the goods and for return of the bank guarantee as directed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and as the revisional application under Section 129DD of the Act filed out of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
