9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim for duty paid at the time of provisional release of seized yarn. Analysis: The appeal pertains to the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 3,17,139/-, which was paid by the appellant at the time of provisional release of seized yarn under a B-11 bond. The original order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the confiscation was later overturned by the Additional Commissioner in de-novo adjudication. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the confiscation of the seized goods, which were not physically available for confiscation. Instead, it was ordered that the amount covered by a Bank Guarantee executed by the appellant be appropriated in lieu of confiscation. The appellant claimed ownership of the seized goods and got them provisionally released duty-free, but later failed to prove any contrary facts regarding the non-duty paid character of the goods. The appellant's refund claim was based on the original order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which no longer existed due to the subsequent decision upholding the confiscation after remand by the Tribunal. The appellant's argument that the Deputy Commissioner enhanced the redemption fine by requiring payment of duty under Section 125(2) was deemed meritless. The Tribunal found that the duty liability at the time of provisional release was valid, and since the basis of the refund claim no longer existed, the rejection by lower authorities was upheld. The appeal was consequently rejected. Conclusion: The judgment highlights the legal intricacies surrounding the refund claim for duty paid at the time of provisional release of seized goods. The decision emphasizes the importance of legal procedures and the finality of orders in such matters, ultimately leading to the rejection of the appellant's claim.
|
