Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (10) TMI 151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 130 of the Act against the impugned order was filed on 10-7-2002 but was returned by the Registry as not maintainable. It is stated that the impugned order dated 19-9-2001 was received by the appellant on 1-1-2002 and the appeal was first filed in this Court in April, 2002 and re-filed on 10-7-2002. Much of the delay appears to have been taken up in curing the office objections on account of the issue of non-maintainability of the appeal initially filed. 3. From the reply to the application filed by the Collector of Customs, it appears that since the applicant is aggrieved only by imposition of redemption fine and the issue is not one concerning classification or valuation, the appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act was indeed not ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y. The payment of Rs. 12.24 lakh was made to FIMPL for the said machines against their invoices dated 5-7-1988 in which it was indicated that the machines were exempted from payment of excise duty. The two machines were installed at Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute, Avika Nagar, District Tonk and National Centre for Camels at Bikaner respectively. 7. The facts that subsequently emerged were that these two machines were part of 56 other similar machines that had been imported by Sanjeevani Fodder Production Private Limited Mumbai ('Sanjeevani') for which an ad hoc exemption order No. 103/87, dated 30-3-1987 had been issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India. The exemption from payment of the cus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er production units valued at Rs. 20 lakhs each and extended an option to M/s. Sanjeevani to have the same released on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 3.5. crores. The two fodder production units purchased by the applicant herein were also directed to be confiscated under Section 111(d) and (o) read with Section 120 of the Act, redeemable on a payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 4 lakhs. In the entire order dated 5-3-1993, the only discussion as regards the role of the applicant herein is as follows : "The Government bodies/research institutions from whose custody the above five Fodder Production Units were seized/detained have represented that they have purchased the same without being aware of the legal implications. Though their re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the applicant herein that it is a bona fide purchaser of the units in question from the open market. The failure to give reasons, according to him, constitutes a substantial question of law, requiring reference to this Court in terms of Section 130A of the Act. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that the redemption fine having already been reduced from Rs. 4 lakhs to Rs 1 lakh by the CEGAT, no substantial question of law arises which requires the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 130A of the Act. 14. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having examined the records of the case, we are of the view that the case of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e..." It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that (SC p. 2387) : "Before we address ourselves to the question whether the facts and circumstances of this case warrant a total or partial waiver of the redemption fine it is necessary to bear in mind the fact that the fixation of the quantum of the redemption is in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of the authorities under the Customs Act and ordinarily the Court, while exercising jurisdiction either under Article 32 or under Article 136 of the Constitution would be slow to interfere with such an order unless it is shown to be thoroughly arbitrary or whimsical resulting in gross miscarriage of justice." 15. We are of the considered view that in the absence of any disc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates