9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order before the Appellate Commissioner. As per the proviso to Section 128(1) of the Act, a further grace period of 30 days is given to an assessee or a person aggrieved by the decision passed under the Act to file such appeal with an application to condone the delay. The power to condone the delay is now circumscribed under Section 128 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner cannot file an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner beyond the statutory period of limitation. Even if such an appeal is filed, such appeal will be rejected - However, a reading of the impugned order and the statement of the petitioner make it clear that there is no admission of liability by the petitioner that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,00,000/- makes the appellate remedy illusory for a small time agriculturist, who had the misfortune of renting out the property to a person, who had actually indulged in illegal export - case remitted back to the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law after ascertaining clearly as to whether the petitioner had indeed actively abetted in the commission of the offence, which attracted the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, so as to attract penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The writ petition stands partly allowed. - W.P.(MD) No.9164 of 2020 And W.M.P.(MD) Nos.8379 and 8380 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 24-3-2022 - Honourable Mr.Justice C.Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.R.H.Dhil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is not well reasoned and therefore deserves to be set aside. 4.Opposing the prayer, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents at the outset submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of latches as it has been filed on 06.08.2020 long after the limitation for filing an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner had expired, in terms of Section 128 of the Act. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner had himself admitted in his statement before the Director of Revenue Intelligence that he had rented out the premises to the said Kishore for storing turtles and tortoises and therefore, the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng sixty days, needless to say, it is based on certain underlined, fundamental, general issues of public policy as has been held in Union Carbide Corpn. case [Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584]. As the pronouncement in Chhattisgarh SEB v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2010) 5 SCC 23, lays down quite clearly that the policy behind the Act emphasising on the constitution of a special adjudicatory forum, is meant to expeditiously decide the grievances of a person who may be aggrieved by an order of the adjudicatory officer or by an appropriate Commission. The Act is a special legislation within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and, therefore, the prescription with regard to the limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggrieved by the decision passed under the Act to file such appeal with an application to condone the delay. 10.The power to condone the delay is now circumscribed under Section 128 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner cannot file an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner beyond the statutory period of limitation. Even if such an appeal is filed, such appeal will be rejected in the light of the Assistant Commissioner's decision (referred supra) . However, a reading of the impugned order and the statement of the petitioner make it clear that there is no admission of liability by the petitioner that the petitioner was conniving with the said Kishore and other exporters, who were engaged in export of turtles/tortoises contrary to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 113 or abets the doing or omission of such an act. Merely because the petitioner had rented out the godown to the other co-noticees, ipso facto would not mean that the petitioner was actively abetted in the commission of the Act, it would have rendered in the goods liable for confiscation. It is quite possible that the tenant was engaged in illegal activities, which would be violation of the Customs Act, 1962, Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, CITES and any other enactments. Imposition of penalty of Rs.4,50,00,000/- makes the appellate remedy illusory for a small time agriculturist, who had the misfortune of renting out the property to a person, who had actually indulged in illegal export. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
