9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S/Shri R.M. Chhaya, SSC and P.S. Champaneri, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : H.N. Devani, J. (Oral)]. This petition challenges order dated 1st August, 2007 made by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) and seeks a direction against the Tribunal to hear the petitioner on merits after dispensing with the amount that the petitioner has been directed to deposit. 2. The facts of the case briefly are that against order dated 29th April, 2005 made by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal reliance was placed upon an order made by the Tribunal in the case of the sister unit in whose case the D.G.F.T. auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the duty had not been demanded for non-fulfillment of the export obligations but had been demanded for the diversion of the goods imported duty-free under the Exemption Notification No. 204/1992-Cus., dated 19-5-1992 into the domestic market. The petitioners challenged the said order by way of appeal before the Tribunal, along with a stay application. The Tribunal after hearing the learned advocates for the parties on the question of stay and waiver of pre-deposit held that the petitioner/appellant had not made out a prima-facie case for total waiver of the duty as confirmed by the Commissioner in his order dated 31st January, 2007 and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2 crore within a period of twelve weeks and to report complia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving been passed in relation to diversion of goods into the domestic market, the extension of period for fulfillment of export obligation had nothing to do with the merits of the present case. 6. A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal indicates that the entire quantity of goods imported duty-free by the petitioner was sold to M/s. Ram Kumar Kishen Kumar, Delhi and M/s. Akansha Enterprises, Delhi, during the period 7-10-1996 to 24-12-1996 under DEEC Scheme and were not utilized for the purposes stipulated in the licence. The Tribunal noted that Commissioner had held that the duty was not being sought for on account of non-fulfillment of the export obligation but on the ground of diversion of imported goods and that petitioner-Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al has not exercised its discretion properly so as to call for any intervention by this Court. It is also pertinent to note that despite the fact that a period of almost three years has elapsed since the passing of the order by the Tribunal, the petitioner is still not ready and willing to deposit the amount directed by the Tribunal. 9. It is necessary to record that despite opportunity having been granted, learned advocate for the petitioner, under instructions, has stated that the petitioner is not in a position to discharge the liability by making pre-deposit even if extension of time and/or installments are granted. 10. In light of the aforesaid discussion, no case is made out for interference by this Court. Under the facts and circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
