9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blic auction and without giving notice to the owner of the goods - Hence, sale is in total disregard of the provisions contained in Section 150 of the Act - It is also in utter disregard to the Circular No. 711/4/2006-Cus. (AS) dated 14-Feb-2006 the authorities are to be remined that law interpreted and laid down is for strict compliance and circulars issued by the authorities themselves are for adherence in letter and spirit. Therefore, the impugned action of the Revenue in selling the goods cannot be sustained - The Revenue directed to pay a sum of Rs. 9,19,625/- to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum to be calculated from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal till the date of actual payment. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. Against the said order an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal). By an order dated 31st January, 2006 appeal was dismissed. Still aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a further appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta. The learned Tribunal by order dated 22nd February, 2007 [2007 (219) E.L.T. 574 (Tri. - Kolkata)] allowed the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). 3. Thereafter, learned advocate of the petitioner by letter dated 27th February, 2007 requested the Superintendent of Customs, Varanasi and respondent No. 1 to comply the order passed by the Tribunal and rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case is whether before sale notice was given to the petitioner - the owner of the goods or whether goods were sold by public auction. I find the affidavit-in-opposition is silent in this regard. Though it has been stated in paragraph-24 of the affidavit filed by the authorities that the goods were sold lawfully to M/s. NCCF, Lucknow, as per the price fixed by the Combined Disposal Committee based on the market opinion, so as to realise the maximum price such sale in my view is in total disregard of the provisions contained in Section 150 of the Act. It is unfortunate that though the High Court in Commr. of Cus. (Prev), W.B. , Calcutta v. Ratan Kumar Saha - 2005 (189) E.L.T. 11 (Cal.) and in Bhogilal Mehta v. Union of India - 2004 (164) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
