9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case are as follows : In this case the appellants have filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) aggrieved with the order of the Lower Authority wherein he confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,32,468.00 (Rupees One Lac Thirty Two Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Eight) under Section 72 of the Customs Act. He adjusted the amount of Rs. 61,000.00 (Rupees Sixty One Thousand only) realized by auction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Heard Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant for the appellant. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeal) has wrongly rejected their appeal. He has not considered at all their submissions that the appellants are not liable to pay the duty on the goods which are auctioned by the Department. He also submits that interest is also not chargeable to them under Section 61 of the Customs Act as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, Bangalore. 3. I have heard both the sides. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) order is vague. When he has set aside the order of the Lower Authority then under what provision the appellant have to pay the balance amount of Rs. 71,468.00 (Rupees Seventy One Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Eight). It has not been clarified under what provision and the act, the appellants have to pay the duty on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mputers and Electronics, Bangalore, the highest bidder. Neither side could confirm whether the goods were auctioned before/after the order dated 10-2-2000 was passed. I find that the order in original has been passed on a later date before the tender notice has been called by the Department. This is also a fact that the appellant has not been informed that his goods are being auctioned whereas i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
