9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Implementation of Tribunal's order for return of seized goods, entitlement to full value of seized goods, discrepancy in payment by Revenue, legal principles governing refund of confiscated goods. Analysis: 1. The appellant sought implementation of the Tribunal's order for the return of seized metal scrap following the allowance of their appeal. The Revenue acknowledged the Tribunal's order but informed the appellant that the goods had been sold at a lower price than the seized value. The appellant contended that they were entitled to the full value of the seized goods, citing relevant legal precedents such as the Tribunal's decision in a specific case and the judgments of the Calcutta High Court and Delhi High Court in other cases. 2. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments, noted that on the success of the appeal, the appellant should receive the price of the goods as declared and accepted at the time of seizure by the Department. Referring to the Calcutta High Court's decision, it emphasized that the Department should have held the goods as a Trustee until the proceedings concluded, as the goods were to be returned to the appellant. Similarly, the Delhi High Court held that if goods were sold by the Department at a lower price than declared or adjudicated, the petitioner was entitled to the actual value of the goods. 3. Citing the Delhi High Court's judgment in another case, the Tribunal highlighted that if confiscated goods subject to appeal were auctioned without permission from the Tribunal, the Revenue must refund the full value of the goods. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in related cases to support the principle that the petitioner should receive back what they had paid. 4. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue's decision to pay the auctioned value of the goods instead of the seized value, despite clear legal principles outlined in previous judgments. The appellant had presented these judgments to the Revenue, yet the Revenue did not adhere to them. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following established legal principles in such matters. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner to refund 50% of the seized amount to the appellant within four weeks, as the appellant had only claimed 50% of the seized goods. The Tribunal set a deadline for compliance and disposed of the miscellaneous application accordingly, ensuring the appellant received the entitled portion of the seized value.
|
