9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 but the order itself has been passed only in 2007 - jurisdiction of officer passing the impugned order - Imposition of dual penalties - rectifiable error or not - HELD THAT:- Section 11(2) of Customs Act in terms of which this penalty has been imposed, prescribes a range between Rs. 10,000/- to five times the value of the goods. The CIF value in this case is Rs. 85,65,953/- and hence, going by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the intervening period of 10 years. 2. Instead the petitioner would seek to point out flaws in the impugned order to state that (i) the show cause notice was issued in 2001 but the order itself has been passed only in 2007, (ii) that the imposition of dual penalties is contrary to the Act and that (iii) the officer passing the impugned order does not have requisite jurisdiction to do so. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Hon ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) v. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Health Care Limited (C.A. No. 2413/2020, dated 6-5-2020) [2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 305 (S.C.) = [2020] 116 taxmann.com 417] has reiterated the position that even writ petitions must be filed within the period of limitation provided under the relevant statute, failing which there must be an explanation for delay to be c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been imposed, prescribes a range between Rs. 10,000/- to five times the value of the goods. The CIF value in this case is Rs. 85,65,953/- and hence, going by the book, the office could have imposed penalty of five times of the aforesaid sum. He has however, restricted himself to less than twice the value of the goods. There is thus no apparent rectifiable error. 7. In the result, this writ pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
