9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xercise - appeal allowed by way of remand. - W.P. Nos. 16782-16783 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 25-7-2017 - M. Dhandapani, J. Shri K.A. Parthasarathy for N. Inbarajan, for the Petitioner. Shri T.R. Senthilkumar, Senior Standing Counsel, for the Respondent. ORDER The petitioner has come up with these writ petitions, challenging the order-in-original passed by the first respondent - Original Authority, on 30-4-2002 and 14-6-2002 respectively, calling upon the petitioner to pay duty amount of ₹ 3,42,142/- and ₹ 4,12,186/- respectively, along with interest at 24% from the date of assessment of subject Bill of Entry, under the Customs Act, 1962, as confirmed by the second respondent - Tribunal. The petitioner has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeals as time-barred, against which, the petitioner preferred further appeals before the second respondent-Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeals and confirmed the orders passed by the authorities below. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court with the present two writ petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only after passing the orders-in-original by the first respondent-Original Authority on 30-4-2002 and 14-6-2002 in respective cases, the petitioner has received the redemption certificates from the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce, Chennai on 13-8-2002, as such, the petitioner was unable to produce the same before the Authority concerne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther appeals filed by the petitioner. 6. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, reported in 2014 (309) E.L.T. 431 (Mad.) (cited supra), wherein, it has been held as follows : 4. But, unfortunately, a show cause notice was issued within the period of eight years granted under the licence, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why duty should not be imposed. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not give a reply, leading to the Original Authority passing an Order-in-Original on 2-8-2010. The petitioner woke up to this order after a gap of about three years and attempted to file an appeal. Since, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), did not have the power to co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objection raised on the side of the respondents. 8. For the reasons stated above, in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner, this Court is inclined to set aside the orders impugned herein and remand the matters to the first respondent-Original Authority to redo the entire exercise. 9. Accordingly, the orders impugned herein are set aside and the matters are remanded to the first respondent-Original Authority for fresh consideration. The petitioner shall file their objections by way of reply as well as redemption certificates to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass orders, on merits and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
