9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enior Advocate with Rajinder Kumar for petitioner. Mr. Narayan Sahu i/b. S.K.Srivastava & Co. for respondents. [Judgment per Smt. Ranjana Desai, J. (Oral)] - The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 28/2/2002 and 4/10/2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ('CEGAT' for short). 2. The brief facts of the case must be stated Bharat B.Chudasama and Bhupendra B.Chudasama (the respondents herein) were passengers on Gulf Air Flight No.GF 0064 dated 13/4/1997 which was to come from Dubai to Mumbai. On specific intelligence that they were smuggling gold into India the officers of DRI, Mumbai interrupted them and 85 foreign marked gold bars and US$ 6215 were found with each of them. Bhupendra Chudasama was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.10 lakhs and penalty was reduced from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.3 lakhs and also currency was ordered to be released. The petitioner moved Misc. application before CEGAT for recalling and stay of the operation of the CEGAT's order dated 26/2/2001 till final disposal of this appeal. By the impugned order dated 4/10/2002 CEGAT dismissed appeals and the application filed by the petitioners relying on the judgment of the CEGAT in CCE, New Delhi V/s. L.M.L. Ltd. 2002 (143) ELT 431 holding that the order of the Adjudicating Authority had merged with the order of CEGAT dt. 28/2/2002 and hence the petitioners appeals are not maintainable. Hence the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove, it is necessary to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the Tribunal for de novo consideration in the light of the Judgment of this Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra). Hence the following order.
a) The impugned orders dated 28/2/2002 and 4/10/2002 are quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to CEGAT for de novo consideration independently in the light of the judgment in Commissioner of C.Ex., Mumbai-II V/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. [2009 (233) E.L.T. 446 (Bom.)].
b) All contentions of the parties are kept open.
c) The CEGAT is directed to dispose of the matter within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.
8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
