9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1973 for ₹ 1,00,000/-. The clearance was objected to on the ground that the said licence was valid to the extent of ₹ 10,000/- only against Sr. Nos. 11 and 27. The Deputy Collector of Customs in the adjudication proceedings ordered confiscation of the goods valued at ₹ 41,040/- as the goods to that extent was not covered by any licence. He, however, allowed redemption on payment of fine of ₹ 20,000/-. On appeal, the Appellate Collector passed the following order :- Since the legality of the lower order is not really in question I shall not enter into any consideration of that aspect of the matter. As for the prayer for leniency, considering that in a second list dated 13-9-1973 attached to the same licence there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e may be an order for refund of the fine amount which the appellants had paid. 5. Shri Gidwani for the Respondent Collector submitted that before the Appellate Collector, the appellants representative had categorically stated that the appellants were not challenging the legality of the order-in-original but had only prayed for leniency. Having regard to the said submission, it would not be now open to the appellants to contest the legality of the order. Shri Gidwani further, contended that what had been now produced by the appellants are Ph- otostat copies which contained number of corrections which are not authenticated and as such no reliance can be placed on those copies. Shri Gidwani further submitted that normally a separate list wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue on merits then the party which abandoned or had given up the issue would be entitled to agitate the point abandoned or given up before the Appellate forum. I, therefore, reject Shri Gidwani s contention that appellant cannot be allowed to challenge the legality of the order passed by the Appellate Collector. 8. Coming to the merits of the order passed by the Appellate Collector Shri Gidwani did not address any arguments apparently because he could not support the view taken by the Appellate Collector that the value should be restricted to ₹ 5000/- even though such a restriction was not found in the licence. But then Shri Gidwani submitted that unless the original licence is produced he would not even subscribe that there was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
