9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... age or storage has not occasioned due to any default of the petitioner but solely due to a wrong order of confiscation. Therefore, the respondent ought to be granting the benefit of waiver of demurrage, storage and other charges. Already a period of almost three months have elapsed since the order of CESTAT. The 1st respondent ought to have issued the certificate as contemplated in Regulation 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner on 26.12.2020 through Bill of Entry No.2113571. The order of confiscation issued by the Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner before CESTAT. The Tribunal, through its order dated 16.08.2021, held that the confiscation was incorrect. It was observed as follows :- Further, I am of the opinion that the impugned goods are not liable to have a BIS compliance as mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scation of the goods of the petitioner was contrary to law. Obviously petitioner was subjected to great injustice. 4. Adv. Sreelal N. Warrier, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, submitted that the order of the CESTAT has been accepted by the respondents and there is no challenge thereto. 5. In view of the finality attained to the order of the CESTAT a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al reliefs as directed out to be granted to the petitioner. The consequential relief includes release of goods forthwith without any liability upon the petitioner. 7. Already a period of almost three months have elapsed since the order of CESTAT. The 1st respondet ought to have issued the certificate as contemplated in Regulation 6(l) without delay. 8. In view of the above, the 1st responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
