2022-TIOL-1364-HC-DEL-CUS
Asker Ali Chengala Mallam Vs UoI
Cus - Petitioner arrived from Dubai and landed at Terminal-3, Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport on 23.11.2014 - Interception revealed that he was carrying 36 gold bars, weighing 4199.04 grams, valued at Rs. 99,36,104/- - Accordingly, the said gold bars were seized, on the ground that they were liable for confiscation - An adjudication order dated 12.07.2016 came to be passed pursuant to a show cause notice dated 18.05.2015 being issued - Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) observed that there was a delay of ten days in filing the appeal and because an application for condonation of delay was not filed, the appeal was not viable; the appeal was, thus, dismissed - Revisional authority declined to accommodate the request for a fresh adjournment of the hearing date although the matter was fixed on several dates for personal hearing, and proceeded to pass the impugned order - Revisional authority was of the view, that since condonation of delay application had not been filed, the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) need not be disturbed - According to the revisional authority, the stance taken before him, that the condonation of delay application was not filed due to mistake of the lawyer, had not been substantiated - Aggrieved, the present petition.
Held: Revisional authority, like the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), has not decided the matter on merits - According to the Bench, although a litigant should be held to account for failure of his lawyer to take necessary steps to protect his interest, there is only so much that the litigant can do - Given the fact that the delay involved was of only ten days, and the matter has not been heard on merits, both before first appellate authority i.e., Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), as well as the revisional authority, Bench is inclined to set aside the order of the revisional authority, and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), with a direction to hear the matter on merits - Matter is remitted to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for a de novo hearing, on merits - Since the petitioner, in a sense, too was responsible, partially, if not wholly, as regards the fate that the matter suffered both before the first appellate authority and the revisional authority, he should be, burdened with costs of Rs. 25,000/-, which is to be deposited with the "Bar Council of Delhi Indigent & Disabled Lawyers Account", within two weeks - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 13.4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1363-HC-AHM-ST
L G Chaudhary Vs UoI
ST - Petition pertains to non-grant of option to pay the amount determined by respondent No. 2-Designated Committee formed under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 through online facility. Held : It is not in dispute that the petitioner was required to make the payment of Rs. 38,64,256/- as determined in Form SVLDRS-3 and the petitioner tried to make the payment through NEFT on 30.06.2020, however, the same was not accepted by the receiving bank and the payment was returned to the petitioner which is apparent from the bank statement produced on record - Bona fide attempt made by the petitioner to make the payment cannot be doubted and, therefore, the substantive benefit of the Scheme cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground of procedural technicalities more particularly, in time of Covid-19 Pandemic - The basic object of the Scheme is to reduce litigation by allowing the eligible assessee to make the payment of the outstanding dues after availing the relief under the Scheme - Bench is of the opinion that this is a fit case for invocation of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petition is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to accept the payment of Rs. 38,64,256/- as specified in SVLDRS-3 dated 16.03.2020 along with interest @ 9% per annum from 30.06.2020 till the date of payment and grant the benefit of the Scheme to the petitioner - The petitioner shall deposit the said amount with interest on or before 15.11.2022 - Impugned order in-original dated 04.01.2021 passed by respondent No. 3 is quashed and set aside so as to grant benefit of the Scheme to the petitioner: High Court [para 8, 9, 10, 12]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1362-HC-AHM-CX
Dhariwal Industries Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Commissioner
CX - Petitioner submits that the goods which are lying without any use since 2004 have become unfit for consumption and therefore sought permission of this Court to destroy/destruct the same - Counsel for Revenue submits that the petitioners have been called upon to show cause as to why the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount of duty and interest pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and if the goods are permitted to be destructed under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the petitioner would be entitled to remission of the duty and that show-cause notice issued by the respondent (demanding CE duty of Rs.2,70,17,147/-) would become infructuous. Held: As admittedly the goods being tobacco and pan masala are not fit for consumption since 2004 as they are lying without any use, the following interim order is passed in the interest of justice: ( i ) The petitioner shall furnish the bank guarantee of Rs. 3 Crore of any nationalized bank within a period of four weeks; (ii) On furnishing such bank guarantee by the petitioner, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the sides, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to destruct the goods in question - Matter stand-over to 24.11.2022: High Court [para 5]
- Interim order passed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
