9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IL KURESHI AND MR. A. Y. KOGJE, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr Hasit Dave, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr Nirzar S Desai, Advocate ORAL ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE) 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order dated 03.10.2017 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to in short as CESTAT ) in Appeal Nos.C/12101/2016 and C/12102/2016. By the impugned order, CESTAT dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 82 days in preferring the Statutory Appeal. 2. The facts in brief are as under :- a) The petitioner is engaged in business of export of cut and polished diamonds and accordingly, had sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13(h) and 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, since the goods are not physically available for confiscation, as the same have already been exported provisionally in terms of Bond/Bank Guarantee executed by the Exporter, I enforce the conditions of the Bond and accordingly impose a fine of ₹ 60,00,000 (Rupees sixty lacs only) in lieu of confiscation, on M/s. C. Mahendra Exports Limited, [erstwhile M/s. C. Mahendra Exports (100% EOU)] under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. ( ii) I impose a penalty of ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lacs only) on M/s C Mahendra Exports Limited [erstwhile M/s C Mahendra Exports (100% EOU)] under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. ( iii) I also impose a penalty of ₹ 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration such a cause and condone the delay. 4. Against this, learned Advocate for the respondent Department placing reliance on the Affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Surat opposed the petition and submitted that the first Affidavit filed in support of delay condonation do not mention specific dates on which the petitioner No.2 was arrested or released and it was only by a subsequent affidavit, such dates had come on record. It is submitted that the statutory period was to expire on 22.09.2016 whereas the petitioner was released from the arrest prior to such date. 5. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, it appears that the order in original is dated 08.03.2016 which was received by hand delivery by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
