9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not having evidence of legal import/possession of the same. (b) On application by the appellant, the seized goods were provisionally released on execution of a bond for the value of Rs. 10,03,400/- with a bank guarantee for Rs. 2,06,800/-. When the goods were released an amount of Rs. 4,56,475/- was paid by TR-6 challan dated 5-9-2002 towards duty. (c) The original authority by his order dated 8-9-2003 confiscated the goods and also confirmed the demand of duty under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act and appropriated towards duty the sum of Rs. 4,56,475/- which was earlier paid by the appellant on 29-8-2002 at the time of provisional release. (d)The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 1-6-2004 held that as the appellant is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y paid for the purpose of Section 15(1)(c) of the Customs Act. Whatever the rate of duty applicable on the date, he makes the application should be treated the rate at which duty is payable and the balance amount out of the deposit should be refunded. 5.The ld. DR submits that the goods have been released provisionally on payment of duty and the question of treating the said amount as deposit does not arise in the light of subsequent order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6.1I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. The issue boils down to whether the payment of Rs. 4,56,475/- is to be treated as duty paid when the goods were provisionally released or only as a deposit and if so, how the order dt. 1-6-2004 of the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der-in-original (8-9-2003) appropriating the amount paid is the date of payment of duty;
(c) The order of Commissioner (Appeals) has the effect of lowering the duty liability and does not convert the duty paid as "deposit";
(d)The appellant is entitled to consequential relief, as per law, in terms of the order dated 1-6-2004 of the Commissioner (Appeals).
7.In the light of the above, I set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter to the original authority to consider the consequential relief, as per law, treating the date of order-in-original as the date on which duty was paid.
8.The appeal is allowed by way of remand on the above terms.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
