9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that the respondents should be given a reasonable time to move the Petition for Stay before the CESTAT, failing which the goods should be released in terms of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the goods in question by assessing the Bills of Entries in terms of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 18.02.2016, after a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This time is granted to the Department to enable them to move the Petition for Stay before the CESTAT, if so advised in the interregnum. If the respondents are unable to obtain any orders of stay from the CESTAT, they shall, on expiry of the 30th day from the date of rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of one of the items viz. Crestron MTX-3 Panel System. 4. This having not been purchased by the petitioner, the Original Authority held that there is a contravention of prohibition imposed under the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 and the said authority confiscated the said item under section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, without giving the option for redemption. Apart from that penalty of ₹ 10,000/- was imposed on the petitioner under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I), stating that the Original Authority has not disputed the band of 24.GHZ to 2.4835 GHZ. and the Rules have clearly and expressl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 18.02.2016, the respondents have filed Appeal before the CESTAT and the matter is likely to be heard shortly. Therefore, to get full instruction in the matter, the case was posted today (10.06.2016). Today, the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that though the appeal has been preferred, the same is yet to be heard and the Petition for Stay is also pending. 9. Taking into consideration of the fact that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was passed on 18.02.2016 and the Appeal has been presented before the CESTAT on 30.05.2016, within the period of limitation and the appeal having been numberred, this Court is of the view that the respondents should be given a reasonable time to move the Petition f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
