9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e any claim before the Tribunal nor made any representation to the authorities, now cannot seek for interest to be granted for the said period by filing this writ petition. - when the sale was effected the goods in question namely, gold bars stood absolutely confiscated and therefore, as on such date, the petitioner had no subsisting right over the said goods - Decided against the petitioner and in favor of revenue. - Writ Petition (MD) No. 1677 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 26-3-2013 - T.S. Sivagnanam, J. Shri S. Renganathan, Counsel, for the Petitioner. Shri S. Vijaykarthikeyan, Senior Standing Counsel, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard Mr. S. Renganathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B. Vijaykarthikeyan le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... take in Miscellaneous Petition No. 23 of 2007. It was contended before the Tribunal that 39 out of 40 gold bars were disposed of by the Department by auction sale in June, 2000 and an amount of Rs. 20,16,734/- was realized after payment of Sales Tax. Further, it was stated that the car was also disposed of during December, 2001 for an amount of Rs. 62,500/- and therefore, the Department sought rectification of the final order passed by the Tribunal dated 12-1-2007. While considering the said miscellaneous petition for rectification, the Tribunal while passing the stay order dated 11-5-2000, noted the sale of gold bars by the Department and the Tribunal was satisfied that the final order passed on an erroneous premise that the gold bars and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner shall realize penalty and redemption fines as well as duty from the sale proceeds of the goods and return the balance amount to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of in this terms. 5. As per the direction issued by the Tribunal, a revised Order-in-Original (de novo) was issued by the Commissioner on 15-11-2007 by which the Commissioner imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 40 gold bars in lieu of confiscation and since the gold bars are already sold by the Department, the sale proceeds of gold along with one gold bar available as PTD sample shall be released to the party after deducting redemption fine, appropriate duty and penalty and other duties. Pursuant to the said order, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sale of gold bars during May, 2000. This has resulted in the Tribunal issuing certain directions for redemption by its order dated 12-1-2007. Only, after the order was passed by the Tribunal, the Department noticed the mistake and filed a petition for rectification. This application was heard by the Tribunal and the Tribunal recorded a finding that it was aware that the gold bars were already sold by the Department at the time when the interim order was passed. However, since without considering the said fact, the final order was passed, revised orders were passed by the Tribunal. The operative portion of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 9-5-2007 has been referred supra. Thus, by virtue of the revised order, the petitioner was entit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
