9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assesse was bound to succeed because that led to anomalous situation of inconsistent orders in same matter – Admittedly Department choose to dispose of gold on 3-2-2006 – In said circumstances, direction that revenue should pay price of gold was fair and reasonable – Appellant/Revenue directed to pay sum with interest – Decided against revenue. - Cus. A.C. No. 7 of 2013 & CM No. 3693 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 9-5-2014 - S. Ravindra Bhat and Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Prem Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER This Court on, 28-10-2013, made the following order :- This appeal is directed against the two orders of the tribunal dated 2nd February, 2009 and 29th April, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to India by Mr. Dinkar Khindria (respondent/assessee) and Mr. Mohit Thakore, A show cause notice was issued on 26-6-1992 to the respondent/asses-see, Mr. Dinesh Khindria (brother of the respondent/assessee) and Mr. Mohit Thakore for illegal importation and alleged evasion of Customs Duty. This led to an adjudication order by the Collector of Customs on 20-8-1993 and confiscation of the entire quantity as well as imposition of penalties. Aggrieved by the order dated 20-8-1993 by the Collector of Customs, appeals were preferred by Mr. Dinesh Khindria (brother of the respondent/assesee) and Mr. Mohit Thakore. The Tribunal by order dated 6-5-1994, set aside the confiscation of 2kgs. of gold, and ordered its release to Mr. Mohit Thakore upon pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he balance 2 kgs of gold. This appeal was allowed on 2-2-2009 [2009 (237) E.L.T. 41 (Tri.-Del.)]. The Tribunal noted that this Court in its previous order made on 23-9-2008 had observed the difference between the final order of the Tribunal passed on 25-5-2000, the hand written order dated 5-7-2000 and the one made later on 3-6-2005. The Tribunal further noted that the High Court had set aside the previous order of the Tribunal in the case of both the importers/assessees. It was in these circumstances that by its elaborate order of 2-2-2009, the Tribunal directed the release of gold of the amount subject to payment of redemption fine ₹ 2,50,000/-, penalty of ₹ 15,000/- and Customs Duty of ₹ 20,000/-. Apparently, these amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dopted and appropriate rate of interest, imposed. 7. It is evident from the above narrative that when the goods, i.e., gold biscuits of 4 kgs were imported in 1992, there were two claimants, i.e., Mr. Mohit Thakore and the respondent/assesee s brother. Concededly, in the case of Mr. Mohit Thakore, the Tribunal s order directing release of goods upon payment of redemption fine, penalty and Customs Duty became final and was complied with as far back as in 1993-1994. In these circumstances, even if one were to assume that the order of 25-7-2000 was not tainted with any irregularity (as is actually the case), the assessee was bound to succeed because that led to an anomalous situation of inconsistent orders in the same matter. The assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
