High CourtsDivision Bench(2021) 03 KL CK 0379

M/S Ashwin Gold Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 30 March 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.V. Bhatti, J · Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Appeal No. 1315 Of 2021

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 346 words

S.V. Bhatti, J

1.

Appellant is the petitioner. The appeal is filed questioning the judgment dated 05.08.2020 in W.P.(C) No.15886/2020. The appellant moved C/MISC/20670/2018 in C/21358/2016-DB before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) for release of gold which was confiscated by the order of the Commissioner. The Tribunal, through Ext.P4 order dated 06.09.2018, declined the prayer of appellant for release of the gold confiscated by the Commissioner, resulting in filing of W.P. (C) No.15886/2020 in this Court. Through the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence the appeal.

2.

Advocate P A Augustine made a few submissions on the merits of the matter to convince this Court that the appellant has a strong prima facie case against the order of confiscation made by the Commissioner, the appellant is passing through unprecedented financial stress and strain, the appellant is subjected to recovery notices from the Bank and tax demand from the Income Tax Department. The release of gold would facilitate the clearing of outstanding dues and that the release is always subject to the final orders to be passed by the CESTAT.

3.

By choice, we refrain from, firstly, adverting to the grounds canvassed against the order under challenge before the CESTAT, and, secondly, we are aware that the substantive prayers, as on date, are receiving the required attention from the Tribunal. A few of the dates, particularly the date of confiscation, filing of appeal before the CESTAT, moving an application, dissuade us from considering the prayer of appellant for release of confiscated gold, at this stage. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, thus warranting dismissal of the subject appeal.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Taking note of the circumstances stated by Advocate P A Augustine we observe that a request for early disposal of C/21358/2016-DB could be made before the Tribunal, we are sure that the Tribunal does the needful and disposes of the main case within two months from the date of such request being made by the appellant.