9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said 78 gold bars, said to be of foreign origin, should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and also why personal penalty should not be imposed under Section 112(a) of the said Act. Initially, the Commissioner of Customs, by his Order dated 10th November, 2000, ordered confiscation of the seized gold bars. The said order was challenged before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) which by its Order dated 23rd August, 2001 set aside the order of confiscation passed by the Commissioner on 10th November, 2000, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication after giving the noticees a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. In remand, the Commissioner by his Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irected the petitioners and their authorities to release to the noticees all the 78 bars of gold. 6. After the High Court had directed the release of the 78 bars of gold, the appeals filed by the Department came up for final hearing and disposal before CESTAT on 21st July, 2005. Holding that no relief could be granted since the High Court had already directed release of the 78 bars of gold, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Department. 7. All these special leave petitions arise out of the different orders passed by the High Court as well as CESTAT. 8.Special LeavePetition (C) Nos. 15872-15873/2005 have been filed against the judgment and order dated 24th June, 2005 and 7th July, 2005 passed by the Gujarat High Court on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals filed by the noticees were disposed of. 11. Mr. Radhakrishnan urged that in the interest of justice the orders passed by the Tribunal in appeals preferred by the noticees were required to be set aside and the Tribunal should be directed to take up all the appeals, including the appeals filed by the Department, together, for disposal. 12. The aforesaid submissions were vehemently opposed on behalf of the noticees and it was pointed out that the High Court had dealt with this question in its order dated 7th July, 2005, passed in S.C.A. No. 13519/2005 and had held that it was not possible for the Tribunal on its own to link up two cross appeals unless the said fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the concerned party. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
