9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate, due and payable in terms of an order. Now, we have a request for fresh adjudication into the same show cause notice. We do not deem it fit and proper to extend such facility or grant an opportunity at this belated stage unless the interests of Revenue are secured. Purely on the facts and circumstances of this case and without this order being treated as a precedent in future cases, including of a public sector undertaking, we direct that if the petitioner pays the amount of differential duty in terms of the communication dated 24th August, 2017 - petition disposed off. - Writ Petition No. 2278 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2018 - S. C. DHARMADHIKARI SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w Mr. Anshul Jain i/by U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /under heading 98.01 of the Custom Tariff and Project Import Regulations, 1986, has been paid. A provisional duty bond of ₹ 1,52,50,000/for differential duty was also executed. 4. The claim is that the goods were imported for home consumption and certain compliances were to be made which were not made but this could not have been termed as default, much less intentional. A show cause notice was issued dated 21st October, 1997 and the specific claim is that it was not served. No notice of any hearing was received, nor was the petitioner heard, but an ex parte order came to be passed on 28th August, 2003. 5. The respondent no.2 denied the benefit of project import and passed this order. 6. However, the petitioner did not file a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow, later on, the petitioner was served with a communication dated 24th August, 2017 by which communication, the petitioner was directed to pay the balance amount. All the more, when the petitioner's request for payment by installments has also been accepted as an exceptional case by the Chief Commissioner of Customs. 8. The later communication dated 24th August, 2017 and the prior correspondence, according to Mr. Raichandani, would save the bar of delay and laches. His prayer is that, bearing in mind that the petitioner is a Government/PSU, we should take a sympathetic view. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Jetly would submit that such a petition, even if filed by a PSU, should not be entertained. That would send down a wrong message fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to engage it in correspondence and though an order was passed confirming the duty demanded way back on 28st August, 2003. We have found that save and except a sum of ₹ 23,56,548/paid on 29th March, 2010 and ₹ 25,00,000/on 28th April, 2017, the balance amount of ₹ 1,14,05,689/alongwith applicable interest was not paid. Since the balance amount was not paid even by installments, the recovery proceedings and by coercive means were sought to be initiated. 11. Thus, the petitioner paid the sums which are mentioned in para 2 of the communication dated 24th August, 2017. The payment by installments, which is a facility extended to the petitioner, has also not been availed of. 12. To our mind, these are not satisfactory st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
