REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

GOVIND RAM AGARWAL Appellant

V/S

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PAHAR CHAND AND SONS V. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER KUMAR V. COLLECTOR [REFERRED TO]
AJAY EXPORT V. COLLECTOR [REFERRED TO]
EAST INDIA HOTEL V. CHAND PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
KALRA GLUE FACTORY V. SALES TAX TRIBUNAL [REFERRED TO]
PARKAR LEATHER EXPORT V. COLLECTOR [REFERRED TO]
EAST INDIA COMMERCIAL CO LIMITED CALCUTTA VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS VS. CHARAN DAS MALHOTRA [REFERRED TO]
KANUNGO AND COMPANYMPANY VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. K R ERRY AND SOBHAG RAI MEHTA:SHRI KHAUSHAL SINGH P A S [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND MOHAN SINHA VS. AMULYA KUMAR BISWAS [RELIED ON]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS VS. D BHOORMALL [REFERRED TO]
NATHA SINGH VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER TAXATION PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RAJ RESTAURANT VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
K L TRIPATHI VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MOHANLAL JITAMALJI PORWAL [REFERRED TO]
JAIN SHUDH VANASPATI LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMINARAYAN RAMNIWAS VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [REFERRED TO]
SOVACHAND MULCHAND VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTUMS AND CENTRAL EXISE VS. HINDUSTAN MOTERS LTD [REFERRED TO]
KALIPADA DINDA VS. KARTICK CHANDRA HAIT [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS PROSECUTION PREVENTIVE DEPARTMENT MADRAS VS. DHARAM PAL JAIN [REFERRED TO]
C R H READYMONEY LTD VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
GLAXO LABORATORIES INDIA PRIVATE LTD VS. A V VENKATESWARAN [REFERRED TO]
VASANJI GHELA AND CO VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. POPULAR DYECHEM [REFERRED TO]
MARCANDY PRASAD RADHAKRISHNA PRASAD PVT LTD VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Govind Ram Agarwal has filed two appeals being aggrieved from the orders passed by Collector of Customs, Calcutta. Both the above captioned appeals were presented in the Registry on 30 -10 -86. In column No. 3 of memorandum of appeal the date of communication of the order has been mentioned as 8 -8 -86. In terms of the provisions of Section 129A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, an appeal has to be filed within 3 months from the date of the communication of the order. The Honble Calcutta High Court in matter No. 285 of 1985 vide order dated 13 -8 -1986 vide para (g) had directed the appellant to file the appeals against the adjudication order passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta within one month from 13 -8 -86. The appellant had again approached the Honble Calcutta High Court for the extension of time for the filing of appeal and vide order dated 12 -9 -86 the Honble Calcutta High Court had extended the time for the filing of appeals till 31 -10 -86. Thus both the appeals filed in the tribunal are well within period of limitation prescribed under the Act. In terms of the provisions of Section 129A(3) the last date for the filing of the appeals was 8 -11 -86.

(2.) IN view of Honble High Courts directions the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 22 lakhs in cash and had further furnished bank guarantee of Rs. 5 lakhs. In para (h) the Honble Calcutta High Court vide its order dated 13 -8 -86. It was ordered that the deposit of Rs. 22 lakhs and furnishing of the bank guarantee for Rs. 5 lakhs in pursuance of the Honble High Courts order may be treated as a deposit in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly we treat the deposit of Rs. 22 lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs. 5 lakhs as compliance to the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) SINCE the facts of both the appeals are broadly similar, we proceed to decide the same by a consolidated order.

Click here to view full judgment.

GOVIND RAM AGARWAL Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address