2018 (8) TMI 1703

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er the Act are required to determine the issue outside the four corners of the Act. This Petition cannot be entertained on account of laches and, more particularly, also on account of fact that Petitioner has alternative remedy available under the Act of filing an Appeal to the Appellate Authorities - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
M.S. SANKLECHA, & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. Mr. Ishaan Patkar i/b. TJS Legal, for the Petitioner. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, for the Respondents. P.C: This Petition filed on 18th March, 2016 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges an order dated 30th January, 2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. The impugned order dated 30th January, 2012, confirms a penalty of  .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3. Further, Appeal to the Central Excise Service Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) from the order dated 30th September, 2013 of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), was also dismissed. This appeal came to be finally rejected on 18th May, 2015 for failure to comply with the pre-deposit order dated 29th September, 2014. Thus, it is submitted that there has been no laches on the part of the Petitioner. 4. We find even, according to the Petitioner, the Tribunal had rejected the appeal on 18th May, 2015 and appeal was filed on 18th March, 2016. There is no explanation for the above period of 10 months. On the above ground of delay alone, we are not inclined to entertain this Petition. 5. So far as alternate remedy is concerned, the Petitione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the impugned order dated 30th January, 2012, before the Appellate Authority by placing reliance upon Section 28 of the Act to submit that an imposition of penalty beyond a period specified under Section 28 of the Act, to raise demand, is bad in law. Therefore, in the present case, there is a period of limitation which has been provided under the Act and whether the same applies only for demand of customs duty or extends to imposition penalty, is a question which would entirely depend upon the interpretation of the Act by the Authorities under the Act. Therefore, it is not a case where the authorities under the Act are required to determine the issue outside the four corners of the Act. 8. Therefore, in the present facts, we are not incline .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X