THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. RAJAT GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition by the commissioner of customs, Bangalore, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, directed against the order dated 12 -4 -2001 [copy at Annexure -E to the writ petition] passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal [CEGAT], South Zonal Bench, Bangalore in Appeal No C/641/2000, relating to the respondent -assessee.

(2.) THE commissioner, in preferring such a writ petition, had not only not availed of the statutory remedy, which was otherwise available against an order of this nature in terms of Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1982 [for short, the Act, as it prevailed on the relevant date when the impugned order was passed, and which reads as under:

(3.) IT is because of this unusual manner of the commissioner having approached this court by invoking writ jurisdiction to get over the order passed by the tribunal, reversing the order of the adjudicating authority and directing not only release of the confiscated goods but also setting aside the personal penalties on the respondent, the respondent has raised a preliminary objection of tenability of this writ petition and more so, when the commissioner has not only not availed of the statutory remedy of Section 130A of the Act within the permitted time, but has, in fact, approached this court for relief, after the expiry of a period of one year seven months from the date of passing of the order i.e. after the period of more than one year of the expiry of the normal period of limitation to approach this court invoking reference jurisdiction of this court under Section 130A of the Act.