9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocates for Customs Authority. Mr. Santosh Kr. Pandey, Advocate for Union of India. ORDER The Court : The petitioner has challenged an order of adjudication passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), W.B. dated 8th July, 2019, inter alia, on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner refers to the finding of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ighest would have been only Rs. 90,000/-, not Rs. 12,00,000/- as held by the adjudicating authority. To further elucidate this contention the petitioner has relied upon a judgment reported in 2016 (336) E.L.T.230 (Cal.) [Gopal Saha Vs. Union of India]. Referring to the said judgment, the petitioner says that the gold confiscated is not a prohibited goods as indicated in Section 112(b)(i) of the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovision of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. In this context the respondent cites a judgment reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 440 [Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and Others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited] and submits that the instant writ petition should not be entertained. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent that the order impugned is dated 8th July ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt is of the view that the bar of alternative remedy does not operate in the event an appellable order is challenged on the ground of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice. This issue in the instant case requires more detailed hearing which can be done only after calling for affidavits. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within four weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
