9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Customs, Madras, who directed the Respondent herein to redeem the lorry bearing Registration No. MDY 6579 confiscated by him on payment of a fine of Rs. 12,000/- and reduced it to Rs. 5,000/-. It appears from the records that even on the date when the Tribunal passed the order on 18-2-1986 the lorry in question was not available with the department and had been sold on 29-11-1985 , for Rs. 17,000/-. This fact of the sale was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the learned S.D.R. The present application has, therefore, been filed bringing this to the notice of the Tribunal for rectifying the order of the Tribunal and also seeking the direction from the Tribunal for paying a sum of Rs. 12,000/- after deducting the quantum of fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mental Representative on 20-2-1986, no application under Section 129(B)(2) of the Act was filed till August, 1987. The attitude of the department, the learned counsel contended, is deliberate, intentional, mala fide rendering it liable for damages. The learned counsel also submitted that the respondent has issued a lawyer's notice dated 28-2-1987 under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code claiming damages. 4. I have considered the submissions made before me. I should confess, it is regrettable in the extreme that the department has not chosen even to keep the learned Senior Departmental Representative informed about the alleged sale of the lorry in spite of the fact that an appeal was pending on which the learned S.D.R. and the departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department. Nevertheless, factually since the vehicle was not available for redemption, the order of the Tribunal purporting to give an option of redemption to the respondent would require modification in the facts and circumstances of this case and in my opinion the same would come within the mischief of Section 129(B)(2) of the Act. In this view of the matter, I modify the impugned order of the Tribunal and hold that inasmuch as the vehicle was not available with the department and the department had only a sale proceeds of Rs. 17,000/-, deducting a sum of Rs. 5,000/- payable by the respondent in terms of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal towards redemption fine, the department (the petitioner) shall pay the respondent the balance. I sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
