9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was ready and willing to pay the redemption fine and penalty. After the final order of the Tribunal, the Petitioner took no steps whatsoever until 2009 when he addressed a communication to the Respondents. On this state of the record, it is apparent that the Petitioner was himself to blame in not paying the redemption fine within a reasonable period. A period of nearly 18 years elapsed before the Petition was filed and this can by no stretch of imagination be regarded as a reasonable period. The option of redemption was granted to the Petitioner which he failed to exercise. The gold having vested absolutely in the Union Government, no fault can be found in the action that was pursued of selling the confiscated property. The prayer fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 December 2011 of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) rejecting a representation of the Petitioner dated 23 August 2011 for the return of the sale proceeds of the gold after adjusting the outstanding government dues. The Assistant Commissioner while rejecting the representation has noted that the Petitioner was given an option to redeem the gold on the payment of the redemption fine as directed by the CEGAT on numerous occasions. Upon the failure of the Petitioner to do so, the gold and ornaments were disposed of. Since the ownership of the gold and ornaments upon confiscation vested with the government, the request made by the Petitioner for the payment of the sale proceeds with interest was rejected. 3. In these proceedings the Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... again on 3 April 2006, 23 February 2010 and 30 March 2010 communications were addressed to the Petitioner. 4. The case of the Petitioner, as urged before this Court by counsel, is that the Petitioner had upon the passing of the order of the Tribunal addressed a communication to the Superintendent, Gold Control on 14 October 2002 seeking permission to redeem the gold ornaments and expressing a readiness to pay the requisite amount. A copy of the communication is annexed at Exhibit G to the Petition. Prior thereto according to the Petitioner he had addressed a letter dated 28 April 1993 (Exh.D). In the affidavit in reply it has been stated that Exhibits D and G to the Petition which are respectively the letters dated 28 April 1993 and 14 O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stretch of imagination be regarded as a reasonable period. The Petitioner, it appears from the record, was facing proceedings under the Income Tax Act 1961, but the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II, Mumbai was passed on 16 September 2002 (Exhibit E). Even thereafter no steps were taken by the Petitioner. The gold was ordered to be confiscated. The option of redemption was granted to the Petitioner which he failed to exercise. The gold having vested absolutely in the Union Government, no fault can be found in the action that was pursued of selling the confiscated property. In these circumstances, the prayer for the return of the gold ornaments or in the alternative, for the payment of the sale proceeds cannot be acceded t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
