9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Union of India Mr. Amitabrata Roy, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Adv. for respondent ORDER The Court : The petitioner has challenged an order of adjudication passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), W.B. dated 26th December, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t would have been only Rs. 3,00,000/- and odd and not Rs. 50,00,000/- 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) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound 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 26th December, 2019. The limitation period available for preferring th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdiction 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, within two weeks thereafter. Liberty to mention after eight weeks for inclusion in the list under the heading 'Hearing'. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
