9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y dated 24.04.2015. I am also convinced that mere filing of the revision against the order of appellate authority would not empower the respondent to deny release of the goods in question and the respondent have not given any proper explanation as to why no stay order has been obtained against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 24.04.2015, even though the said order said to have been challenged by way of further appeal. Therefore, in my considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to detention of the goods in question, which had been imported by the petitioner, hence, the petitioner is entitled to get release of the goods. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be disposed of directing the respondent to release the goods (gold) for the purpose of re-exporting subject to the petitioner complying with the conditions imposed in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) i.e., payment of redemption fine for re-export and personal penalty and also giving an undertaking to comply with the Order in Original, in the event the Department succeeds in the revision. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.No.17966 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate authority should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. Even after his repeated representations and reminders requesting the respondent to implement the order of the Commissioner of Customs, but the respondent has failed to implement the order of the appellate authority dated 24.04.2015. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced the following decisions:- (i) Union of India vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation reported in 1991(55) ELT 433 SC. (ii) W.P(MD)No.24495 of 2011 in M/s Supra Bio Tech vs. The Chief Commissioner of Customs. (iii) W.P.No.9284 of 2006 (Pushpanjali Silks Private Ltd., vs. CC of Customs and another.) (iv) Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. Krishna Sales (P) limited reported in AIR 1994 SC 1239. (v) W.P(MD)No.18536 to 18538 of 2016 (Mohamed Ansar Abdul Gafoor vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs). (vi) Rabiya Bee vs. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport) and others (W.P.No.19960 of 2016 batch dated 17.06.2016). 5.The case of the respondent is that though the Commissioner of Customs has passed the order on 24.04.2015, against which, the respondent has filed a revision al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner was passed on 30.06.2015 and the revisions are said to have been presented only on 16.02.2016/05.03.2016. In any event, as on date, the orders which have been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) almost one year back has not been either set aside or modified. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondent should comply with the direction subject to certain conditions. 7.In the light of the above, these Writ Petitions are disposed of by directing the respondent to release the Gold Jewelery for the purpose of re-export subject to the petitioner complying with the conditions imposed in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) i.e., payment of redemption fine for re-export and personal penalty and also giving an undertaking to comply with the Order in Original, in the event the Department succeeds in the revision. The above directions shall be complied with by the respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 10.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation reported in 1991(55) ELT 433 SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority to apply to the Collector (Appeals) for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the Collector of Central Excise in his order and there is a further right of appeal to the department. The position now, therefore, is that, if any order passed by an Assistant Collector or Collector is adverse to the interest of Revenue, the immediately higher administrative authority has the power to have the matter satisfactorily resolved by taking up the issue to the Appellate Collector or the Appellate Tribunal as the case may be. In the light of these amended provisions, there can be no jurisdiction for any Assistant Collector or Collector refusing to follow the order of the Appellate Collector or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, even where he may have some reservations on its correctness. He has to follow the order of the right appellate authority. This may instantly cause some prejudice to the Revenue but the remedy is also in the hands of the same officer. He has only to bring the matter to the notice of the Board or the Collector so as to enable appropriate proceedings being taken under S.353(1) or (2) to keep the interests ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents ought to have taken urgent steps to obtain a stay order against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, dated 16.9.2011, if they had intended to detain the goods in question. However, in the present case, nothing has been shown on behalf of the respondents to substantiate their claim that necessary steps had been taken to obtain the interim order of stay against the order of the appellate authority, dated 16.9.2011. 20. As such, the prolonged detention of the goods in question can only be held to be arbitrary and illegal. It is also noted that an amount of ₹ 12,00,000 had already been paid by the petitioner, as duty, in respect of the goods in question. 12. In yet another case in W.P.No.9284 of 2006 (Pushpanjali Silks Private Ltd., Vs. CC of Customs and another), this Court has held as follows:- 14. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Additional Solicitor General, I am of the view that the third respondent is duty bound to implement the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and he cannot flout the orders by not releasing the goods covered by the Bill of Entry in question. As la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operate as stay and therefore, the goods detained should be released as per the appellate order. 14. Further, this Court also in W.P.Nos.18536 to 18538 of 2016 dated 07.06.2016, (Mohamed Ansar Abdul Gafoor vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs), has held as follows:- 6. As pointed out earlier, in the instant case there is no proof to show that the revision petitions have been taken on file and no proof has been produced to show that notice has been ordered to the petitioner. That apart, the order of the Commissioner was passed on 30.06.2015 and the revisions are said to have been presented only on 16.02.2016/05.03.2016. In any event, as on date, the orders which have been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) almost one year back has not been either set aside or modified. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondent should comply with the direction subject to certain conditions. 7. In the light of the above, these Writ Petitions are disposed of by directing the respondent to release the Gold Jewellery for the purpose of re-export subject to the petitioner complying with the conditions imposed in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) i.e., payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
