9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectification of the order of the Division Bench by the present application to overcome the rigours method in section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962. This is certainly mis-placed. The applicant had the opportunity of raising these very same issues that are now raised in this miscellaneous application before the Bench hearing their appeal. The contentions of the applicant not being relevant and no additional detriment having been visited upon the applicant by the dismissal of appeal of Revenue, the application is without merit and is, therefore dismissed. - APPLICATION NO: C/ROM-92335/2017 IN APPEAL NO: C/702/2006 - M/91023/2017 - Dated:- 14-7-2017 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate for applicant-resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissal. A Division Bench of the Tribunal, in their appeal, upheld the order impugned before it without, as per submission of applicant, giving them an opportunity to be heard as they had not received notice of personal hearing. It is also contended on behalf of the applicant that the conclusion of the Tribunal in the appeal of Revenue that the penalty of ₹ 19,28,943/- was under section 112 when such a determination had not been done by the Division Bench in the appeal of the applicant is a mistake that should be rectified. A further contention is that it was also mistake o the part of the Tribunal to uphold the fine in lieu of confiscation as a substitute for penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 in the appeal of Revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty referred is penalty under section 112 that was before the Tribunal were not considered to be worthy of rectification. The bench did not, at any time, hold that amount of ₹ 19,28,943/- was a penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. With the dismissal of appeal of Revenue, the adjudication order acquired finality and applicant will have a cause factor only if the recovery officer proceeds to recover the fine that was imposed under section 125. Till such occurrence, there is no detriment to the applicant. 6. The contentions of the applicant not being relevant and no additional detriment having been visited upon the applicant by the dismissal of appeal of Revenue, the application is without merit and is, therefore dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
