2010 (3) TMI 532 - HC - Customs

Confiscated goods - The respondent-assesses filed an appeal before the Commissioner of appeals who directed the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- as a condition to hear the appeal as required under Sec. 129A of the Customs Act and he also passed an order to release the car on payment of Rs. one lakh and he reduced the penalty to Rs. 50, 000/-. Thereafter the assessee addressed letters to release the car on the ground that he is willing to pay the duty payable on the vehicle. Later on he came to know that his car was sold by the revenue during the pendency of this appeal before the commissioner of Appeals. In the circumstances he approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition on the ground that his requests to release the car has not been considered by the revenue. Held that - custom duty could not be collected due to sale of vehicle and Tribunal order directing payment without reference of duty sustainable. Order of Commissioner(Appeals) attained finality and not open for revenue to dispute its validity.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Alleged attempt to clear imported car by manipulating documents.
3. Confiscation and penalty imposed by revenue.
4. Appeal before Commissioner of Appeals.
5. Car sold by revenue during appeal.
6. Writ Petition filed for release of car.
7. Tribunal's direction for refund of car's value.
8. Substantial questions of law raised in appeal.

Issue 1: Appeal against Tribunal's Order
The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore. The Tribunal had directed the refund of the value of an imported car along with interest, as the revenue was unable to deliver the vehicle due to its unauthorized sale during the pendency of the appeal.

Issue 2: Alleged Manipulation of Documents
The revenue alleged that the respondent attempted to clear an imported car by manipulating documents to avail benefits. A show cause notice was issued, leading to the confiscation of the car and imposition of a penalty. The respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals, who directed a deposit and reduced the penalty.

Issue 3: Unauthorized Sale of Car
The respondent's car was sold by the revenue during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals. This led to the respondent filing a Writ Petition, seeking the release of the car, which was granted by the High Court directing the revenue to consider the representation within a specified period.

Issue 4: Tribunal's Direction for Refund
The Tribunal, considering various decisions, held that the assessee was entitled to a refund of the car's value as per the Mahazar at the time of seizure, along with interest. The Tribunal's decision was challenged in the appeal on several substantial questions of law.

Issue 5: Legal Contentions
The revenue contended that the Writ Petition was not maintainable, and the sale of the car by the revenue was not challenged through the proper appellate process. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the revenue's unauthorized sale prevented compliance with the Commissioner's order, justifying the Writ Petition and the relief granted by the High Court.

Analysis and Conclusion
The High Court found that the revenue's unauthorized sale of the car prevented the appellant from complying with the Commissioner's order. Consequently, the Tribunal's direction for refund of the car's value was deemed justified. The Court dismissed the appeal, ruling against the revenue on all substantial questions of law, given the circumstances of the case.