9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the first petitioner with Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. This is prayer clause (c) of the petition. The first petitioner is a director of the second petitioner-company which was earlier known as Dimple Overseas Limited. 3.It is the case of the petitioner No. 1 that he is exporter and he has been wrongly involved in the transactions of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The first petitioner was forced to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,00,30,000/- supposed to be his part of the duty allegedly evaded by the Respondent No. 4/Kunal Overseas Limited, an importer company. This was on the statement of Mr. Paresh Parekh/Respondent No. 5 (a director of Kunal Overseas Limited) and, the petitioner was in fact in custody and was threatened to be detained under COF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Diwan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has pointed out from the order that the Petitioners were not at all involved in this alleged evasion of duty, though they were alleged to have been indirectly involved through a third party i.e. M/s. Bishwanath Ind. Limited. All these submissions have been considered and accepted by the Commissioner and, thereafter above findings have been arrived at and necessary directions have been given by the Commissioner in the last paragraph of his order, that the duty demanded is confirmed only against Kunal Overseas Limited and its partner to the tune of Rs. 8,17,57,797/-. As far as the Petitioner is concerned it has been held as pointed out above earlier that the deposit of Rs. 2,00,30,000/- has to be ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand submitted that if this was a part of duty, refund application has to be made under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, he alternatively submitted that Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were contemplating to file an appeal against the order of the Commissioner dated 18th April, 2001 of which enforcement is sought in the present petition. Mr. Patel learned Counsel for added Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted that it is only the stay application filed by his client which had been rejected and the main appeal is yet to be heard and decided. 8.Having heard all the Counsel for the respective parties, we are of the view that in view of the clear direction by the Commissioner and also in view of the fact that for more than a year no appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
