9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m. 3. Heard the learned SDR who submits that the original order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which has set aside the confiscation, no longer exists. The Additional Commissioner in de-novo adjudication has confirmed the confiscation. There is no indication that order passed by Additional Commissioner has been challenged. Therefore, he submits that order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is legal and proper and require no interference. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the appellant in appeal memorandum and also in the impugned order. Since the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) explained the facts and reasons for his conclusion properly, the same are reproduced below : 5.2 I find from the facts of the case that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Act, 1962 when any goods are confiscated under the Act ibid, such goods shall thereupon vest in the Central Government. As per Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the owner of the goods or where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized shall, in addition to the fine in lieu of confiscation, be liable to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods. It is not disputed that the appellant had claimed ownership of the seized goods and got the same provisionally released in terms of B-11 bond dated 8-8-03 executed by them. The seized yarn were imported duty free by the appellant availing exemption from duties of Customs applicable to 100% EOUs which were in turn removed clan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enhanced the quantum of redemption fine by appropriating duty paid by them. 6. I find no merits in the submissions made by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal. In this case, refund claim was filed based on the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who had set aside the confiscation. This order itself has been set aside and after the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority by the Tribunal, the confiscation has again been upheld. There is no indication in the memorandum of appeal that any appeal has been filed against order passed after the matter was remanded. Therefore, the order of the Additional Commissioner has attained finality. Refund claim was filed based on the order of Commissioner (Appeals), which no longe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
