9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3568 dated 16.02.2019 was allotted, seeking clearance of the goods for home consumption. In support of such assertion, a copy of the checklist copy of Bill of Entry stands appended and placed on record as Annexure P Still further in Paragraph 8 of the writ petition, there is a positive assertion that the goods in question had arrived before 18.00 hours on 15.02.2019 and the IGM (Import General Manifest) was filed on 16.02.2019 and the checklist Bill of Entry having also been filed on 16.02.2019. Under such circumstances, generation of the Bill of Entry would be seen as a mere procedural fallout. Revenue is not in a position to controvert that the petitioner has placed the import orders prior to 16.02.2019 and has also received goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factual background that the instant writ petition was filed seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to issue Bill of Entry number, in terms of Job No. 3568 dated 16.02.2019 filed vide checklist Bill of Entry. Challenge was also laid to the Notification bearing No. 05/2019-Cus. dated 16.02.2019 (Annexure P-6) on the ground that the same is in contravention to the Notification No. 68/2012-Cus. Dated 31.12.2012. Case projected on behalf of the petitioner was that the impugned Notification dated 16.02.2019 (Annexure P-6) can only be prospective in operation. During the course of hearing today, counsel for the parties are ad idem that a bunch of 27 writ petitions involving similar facts and identical legal issues came to be deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification is made applicable to them, it would amount to retrospective application which is not permissible in law. 14. We thus in view of the above and agreeing with the judgment of Karnataka High Court in case of Param Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), duly upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; and without going into vires of impugned notification, hold that all the Petitioners would be liable to pay duty as was applicable at the time of filing of bill of entry coupled with the fact of the imported goods having entered territory of India on 16.02.2019 prior to the issuance of the impugned notification. The Respondent shall release goods within seven days on payment of duty as declared and assessed, if not already paid, ignoring th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2019 and the checklist Bill of Entry having also been filed on 16.02.2019. In the reply, that has been filed to paragraphs 7 and 8, such factual premise has not been denied. Under such circumstances, generation of the Bill of Entry would be seen as a mere procedural fallout. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate is not in a position to controvert that the petitioner has placed the import orders prior to 16.02.2019 and has also received goods on or before 16.02.2019 and in any case prior to issuance of the impugned notification which was uploaded on 16.02.2019 at 8.45 p.m. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed in terms of judgment dated 26.08.2019 rendered in M/s Rasrasna Food Pvt. Ltd. (supra). - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
