9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 1997. Among various items imported by the petitioner No.1 were bearings, which were required to be mounted on various machineries. They were bonded under Bond No.10/95-96 darted 7.3.1996 and 2/96-97 dated 19.4.1996. The Officer of the directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit Bangalore visited the premises of the petitioner along with independent witnesses to inspect the installation of the goods covered under the above mentioned bonds and verified the same in the presence of Sri. K. Sarovar, the Chief General manager of the petitioner s plant. The bearings valued at ₹ 1,15,88,315/- were seized under a mahazar dated 22.11.1997 for further action. The custody of the seized goods was handed over the petitioner No. 1 by the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sposal. 4. Sri Habibulla Basha, learned senior Counsel appears for the petitioners. He complaints that the Commissioner has totally ignored the findings of the Tribunal and also the directions of this Court. He further says that he has made certain unwanted remarks against the Counsel in his order. He took me through the order. 5. Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel appears for the Department. His initial objection is with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition in the light of a statutory remedy being available by way of an appeal to CEGAT. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel I am of the view that in the light of a statutory remedy available to the petitioner, it is unnecessary for me to go into the merits o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this order. It any such appeal is filed in terms of this order. If any such appeal is filed in terms of this order, the Tribunal is directed to consider the appeal without insisting on limitations. 3) The Tribunal is further directed to consider the legality/validity of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner in the light of a specific finding and specific director in terms of para 6 of the Tribunal s earlier order dated 31.8.1999 as culled out in para 8 of the order in W.P. No.22391-392/2002 dated 18.2.2003. In addition, the Tribunal is also directed to consider the legality of the impugned order strictly in terms of the directions made in para 10 of the order dated 18.2.2003 in W.P. No. 22391-392/2002. Time for completing the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
