Ronak Gems Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) ...
- Case No.Appeal No. C/89472/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal against an order of provisional attachment under Section 28BA of the Customs Act, 1962 is maintainable where it is filed before the expiry of the six-month period specified in Section 28BA(2). Where the six-month period under Section 28BA(2) has expired, the provisional attachment ceases to have effect by operation of law, so the impugned order is no longer operative and an appeal against it is rendered infructuous.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. MUM-CUSTOM-PAX-COM-02-13-14 dt. 15.7.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (A.P.)CSI Airport, Mumbai )
For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
=============================================================
Ronak Gems Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellant
VS
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) CSI Airport, Mumbai :
Respondent
Appearance
Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate for Appellant
Shri M.K. Sarangi, Joint Commissioner (A.R) for respondent
CORAM:
Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical) Mr. Ramesh Nair (Judicial)
Date of hearing : 24/07/2015 Date of pronouncement :05/08/2015
ORDER NO.
Per : P.S. Pruthi
Under the impugned Order dt. 15.7.2014 seven properties owned by M/s. Ronak Gems Pvt. Ltd. were provisionally attached in terms of Section 28BA of the Customs Act. Further, provisional attachment proceedings of twelve other properties were dropped as they do not belong to the appellant.
2. The appellant claim relief in this appeal for release of the seven properties provisionally attached and for return of the original documents relating to these properties.
3. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant prays for disposing the appeal in accordance with law.
4. The Ld. A.R. appearing on behalf of Revenue says that the appeal is not maintainable because provisional attachment under Section 28BA of the Act ceases to have effect after the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the order.
5. We find in this case the appeal was filed on 16.10.2014 that is before the expiry of the six months period laid down under Section 28BA(2). Therefore, we hold that the appeal is maintainable.
6. However, since the six months period has expired and the law itself provides that the provisional attachment shall cease to have effect, the impugned Order in not operative. Therefore, the appeal has become infructuous.
7. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(Pronounced in court on 05/08/2015)
(Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial)
(P.S.Pruthi) Member (Technical)
SM.
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free