9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... May, 1996 - Held that:- No mala fide intent or any extraneous reasons/ grounds can be attributed to the Revenue in detaining and refusing to clear the goods of the importer(s). Rather, the actions of the Revenue were prompted by what we consider to be a possible understanding of the provisions of the Notification in force i.e. Notification No.104/95 dated 30th May, 1995. The subsequent change of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adv., Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv., Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR, Mr. Jay Savla, AOR, Ms. Renuka Sahu, Adv., Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Adv., Ms. Mallika Joshi, Adv., Mr. Rajan Narain, AOR, Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv., Mr. A. V. Rangam, AOR, Mr. Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Adv., Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, Adv. And Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.624 of 1996, would go to show that the goods were not allowed to be cleared by the importer(s), by availing the benefit of credit that the importer(s) had earned, due to a dispute as regards the true meaning and purport of clause (iv) of the second proviso to condition (2) of the Notification No.104 of 1995 dated 30th May, 1995 as amended. In fact, there was a direction dated 19th February, 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods which would be so liable. 7. It is in the aforesaid context and in the light of the aforesaid contention that the impugned directions were issued by the learned single judge which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in appeal. 8. We have read and considered the contents of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter/reply affidavit filed before the High Court on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch is subsequently corrected by the Revenue itself or corrected on the basis of a subsequent judicial pronouncement will not, ipso facto, make the Revenue liable for payment of demurrage charges as has been contended on behalf of the appellant(s) - importer(s). We, therefore, will have no occasion to interfere with the order of the High Court insofar as demurrage charges are concerned and issue an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
