9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of this petition are as follows: 2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Private Limited Company carrying on business of export and petitioner No. 2 Mansukhlal Chhaganlal Desai is the Director of the Company. The petitioners in the course of their business, imported five consignments of Mono Ethylene Glycol in March 1983. The Customs Authorities assessed the goods under Customs Tariff Item No. 29.01 for the purpose of Customs duty and under Tariff Item No. 68 for the purpose of additional duty/countervailing duty. The Customs authorities did not extend the benefit of the excluding Clause (a) of the Central Excise Tariff. The petitioners claim that they became aware that levy and collection of additional duty was illegal and without authority of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owledge and that what is stated in the remaining paragraphs thereof is stated on information and legal advice which I believe to be true." 4. The petition came up for admission before us on July 2, 1991 and was adjourned to July 8,1991 as the respondents desired to file return. On July 5,1991 on behalf of the respondents, Shri Vijay Kumar Takkar, Assistant Collector of Customs, has filed return and pointed out that the petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 3357 of 1990 seeking refund of additional duty of customs in respect of four bills of entry dated March 24,1983 and bearing Nos. 6313, 6315, 6318 and 6316. That Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 3357 of 1990 came up for admission before Division Bench consisting of Justice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice in respect of proposed action and he would remain present in Court on July 11,1991 and will show cause why action should not be taken. Accordingly, the petition Was adjourned till today. Shri Ravi informed us that he does not desire to appear for the petitioners any longer and petitioner No. 2 informed us that he would make arrangement to engage another Advocate. Today, Shri Jain, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioners and petitioner No. 2 is also present in Court. Petitioner No. 2 has filed affidavit sworn on July 8,1991 and it is claimed in Paragraph 5 that the file was handed over to Shri Ravi, Advocate with instructions to file Writ Petition in regard to the pending refund claims and Shri Ravi inadvertently included the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia due to their conduct. 6. Accordingly, petition is summarily dismissed. The Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to file prosecution in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate against petitioner No. 2 for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 193,196, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code. As we are directing prosecution against petitioner No. 2, it is not necessary to take any proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. The papers and proceedings of Writ Petition No. 2116 of 1991 and Writ Petition No. 3357 of 1990 along with companion Writ Petition No. 2117 of 1991 and Writ Petition No. 3358 of 1990 to be kept under seal by the Prothonotary and Senior Master and to be produced in the Court of Metropolitan Magis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
