9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THAT:- Admittedly, the impugned Order in Original is dated 11.05.2004. The petitioner has filed this writ petition only in the year 2020. Under the impugned Order in Original, the petitioner has been directed to pay the differential duty of Rs.2,22,427/-. Since the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly, this Court is of the considered view that after a lapse of almost sixteen years from the date of the impugned Order in Original, he must be put on terms for quashing the impugned Order in Original dated 11.05.2004 and for reconsideration of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, based on the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the order dated 30.07.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt only on 14.02.2020 and immediately after coming to know the same, the petitioner has approached this Court and therefore, there is no delay on his part. c)In respect of the very same goods, which were imported by the petitioner, namely, emergency lamps, other importers have got benefit as seen from the Order in Appeal dated 30.07.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Therefore, according to the petitioner, there cannot be any discrimination and the petitioner must also be given the very same benefit. d)The decision of the Madras High Court dated 02.02.1959 in the case of Rayalseema Constructions vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, reported in 1959 AIR (Madras) 382, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition is not maintainable. 6.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends before this Court that the petitioner was not aware of the impugned Order in Original dated 11.05.2004. According to him, even though a recovery notice was issued to the petitioner in the year 2006, the same was replied by the petitioner immediately on receipt of the same. But thereafter no further steps were taken by the respondents to recover the alleged differential duty, which is claimed in the impugned Order in Original. He would also submit that the petitioner was not served with the impugned Order in Original and prior notice was also not received by him. The petitioner has also stated that after receipt of the recovery notice dated 14.02.2020, he has imm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he considered view that after a lapse of almost sixteen years from the date of the impugned Order in Original, he must be put on terms for quashing the impugned Order in Original dated 11.05.2004 and for reconsideration of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, based on the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the order dated 30.07.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), involving a batch of identical cases. 8.No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if such a direction is issued as the respondents will be getting revenue in view of the deposit made by the petitioner pursuant to the directions given by this Court today. 9.For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
