9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ministration of the tax laws. Such a situation cannot be permitted. The respondents are directed to release the goods declared by the petitioner on 13.08.2021 forthwith upon due verification of payment of redemption fine - petition allowed. - WRIT PETITION No. 46508 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2023 - THE HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI For the Petitioner : Mr. Srinivas Chaturvedula For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. B.Mukherjee, Representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of India. For the Respondents No.2 to 5 : Ms. Sapna Reddy ORDER ( Per the Hon ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ) Heard Mr. Srinivas Chaturvedula, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.1; and Ms. Sapna Reddy, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 15.12.2022 passed by respondent No.5 refusing to release the goods of the petitioner. 3. Before we advert to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b heading No.9804 90 00 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; (iii) I order confiscation of the new and unused goods figuring in Annexure-VI to the notice valued at Rs.11,52,050/-, under Section 111(d), 111(l), 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20, Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 and Baggage Rules, 2016, being non-bonafide baggage: However, I give an option for redemption of the goods on payment of redemption fine amounting to Rs.2,30,000/- under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, within a period of 30 days from the date of this order; The confiscated goods which have been given an option for redemption on payment of redemption fine are to be released on payment of Redemption Fine and on payment of customs duties, as applicable, and penalty as imposed; (iv) I order for confiscation of the Old and Used goods figuring in Annexure-VII to the notice valued at Rs.2,13,076/-, under Section 111(d), 111(1), 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20, Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 and Baggage Rules, 2016, as nonbonafide baggage. However, I give an option ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fiscated goods had not been exercised within the maximum period of 120 days from the date of the adjudication order. Thus, the option extended to redeem the goods had become void in terms of the above provision. Therefore, request of the petitioner was rejected. 7. In the meanwhile, petitioner filed appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax, Appeals-I, Hyderabad, against the aforesaid decision of respondent No.5. By the order-inappeal dated 12.09.2022, Commissioner of Appeals set aside the communication dated 03.08.2022 to the extent of rejection of claim for redemption of goods and ordered for allowing redemption of the goods on payment of applicable duties, penalty and redemption fine. A corrigendum to the order-in-appeal dated 12.09.2022 was issued by the appellate authority on 28.09.2022 whereby the operative portion of the order dated 12.09.2022 was clarified by holding that order passed by respondent No.5 was set aside to the extent of rejection of petitioner s request on the ground of delay in seeking redemption beyond the prescribed period and the goods were directed to be released as per the statute on payment of appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43, Supreme Court held and reiterated that the principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not acceptable to the department, which in itself is an objectionable phrase, and is the subject matter of an appeal can be no ground for not following the appellate order unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to the assessee and chaos in administration of the tax laws. 13. Supreme Court again in Collector of Customs v. Krishna Sales (P) Ltd. 1994 Supp (3) SCC 73, reiterated the proposition that mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay or suspension of the order appealed against. It was pointed out that if the authorities were of the opinion that the goods ought not to be released pending the appeal, the straight-forward course for them is to obtain an order of stay or other appropriate direction from the Tribunal or the Supreme Court, as the case may be. Without obtaining such an order they cannot refuse to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court held that it is highly objectionable for an assessing officer to say that decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not acceptable and that since it has been appealed against, the issue of allowability of depreciation on goodwill had not attained finality. It has been clarified that unless there is a stay, decision of the jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is binding on all income tax authorities within its jurisdiction. Thereafter, this Court held as follows: 39. Therefore, the stand taken by the Assessing Officer that since the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of the petitioner itself for the assessment year 2014-15 has been appealed against the issue in question has not attained finality, is not only wrong but is required to be deprecated in strong terms being highly objectionable. 18. Adverting to the facts of the present case, once the appellate authority has passed the order-in-appeal and directed release of the goods on payment of redemption fine, it is not open to respondent No.5 to decline release of such goods despite payment of redemption fine by the petitioner. Respondent No.5, being an officer lower in hierarchy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
