2017 (11) TMI 1171 - AT - Central Excise

Compensation for deteriorated goods, which were seized by the Revenue - failure to release the goods, despite request made by appellant - Held that - Admittedly, the seized goods are the property of the Revenue and under superdginama has to be given for keeping the goods in safe custody - Moreover, in this case the goods were seized on 11.11.2004 and the appellant had requested to release the goods on 23.11.2004, but no response was given to the request made by the appellant in releasing of the said goods, despite the goods of perishable in nature. In that circumstances, Revenue is responsible of the said goods as despite request made by the appellant failed to release the goods which were not liable to be seized as per the final of this Tribunal. As goods have become obsolete in the custody of the Revenue, who was the owner of the said goods, therefore, the appellant is required to be compensated. - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of compensation to the appellant for detained goods seized by the Revenue.
2. Interpretation of the duty of the appellant in keeping the seized goods in safe custody.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of Compensation
The appellant appealed against an order denying compensation for goods seized by the Revenue during recovery proceedings. The appellant argued that the seized goods, valued at &8377;29,34,261, became the property of the Revenue but were given to them for safekeeping. Despite requests for release and the goods being perishable, the Revenue did not take action. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the appellant, stating no payment was required. The appellant contended that as the goods deteriorated while in the custody of the Revenue, they were entitled to compensation.

Issue 2: Duty of Appellant in Safekeeping
The Revenue opposed the appellant's claim, stating that the appellant had undertaken to keep the goods in safe custody and not dispose of them. The Revenue argued that the appellant failed to maintain the goods in good condition as required, justifying the denial of compensation.

The Tribunal considered the facts and legal obligations. It noted that the seized goods belonged to the Revenue and were to be kept in safe custody under superdginama, indicating that the appellant was not the sole holder but responsible for maintaining the goods intact. Despite the perishable nature of the goods, the Revenue did not respond to the appellant's request for release, leading to the deterioration of the goods. The Tribunal held that as the goods became obsolete in the Revenue's custody, the appellant deserved compensation. Consequently, the impugned order denying compensation was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

This judgment highlights the importance of fulfilling obligations in safekeeping seized goods and the liability of the Revenue to compensate for any deterioration or loss while in their custody.