NEW COOL WELL INTERNATIONAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Dhaval Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner. RULE. Mr.Malkan appearing on behalf of the respondents waives service of Rule and the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal with consent of the learned Counsel.

(2.) The petition seeks directions qua the respondent authorities to release the goods covered under Bill of Entry Nos.F-3497 & F-3498, both dated 3.11.2000. The petitioner imported various goods under two Bills of Entry and declared the same as scrap meant for home consumption. The Adjudicating Authority vide his Order-in-Original dated 21.4.2003 (Annexure-A) came to the conclusion that the impugned goods were not scrap and hence the imported consignment totally weighing 39,280 MT was directed to be confiscated with option to get it released by payment of redemption fine. Penalty was also levied on the petitioner as well as its clearing Agent. The matter was carried in appeal before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai. CESTAT for the reasons stated in its impugned order dated 10.09.2004 set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal with consequential reliefs. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite having succeeded before the CESTAT the respondent authorities are not releasing the goods in question.

(3.) As against that Mr.Jitendra Malkan on behalf of the respondents has placed reliance on Affidavit-in-Reply (wrongly titled as Rejoinder Affidavit) dated 20.6.2005 sworn by one Shri Damien D'Costa Fernandes, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Kandla. The main thrust of the reply is that the respondents have already preferred tax appeal against the impugned order of Tribunal dated 10.9.2004 and in the circumstances, as the order of the Tribunal has not attained finality the Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue any directions.