9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eased 1 kg. of gold seized by seizure case dated 03.09.2003, which was accepted by the department. By order dated 19.07.2010, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Seizure & Disposal, stated that the owner of the goods is entitled to redeem the seized gold on payment of Redemption Fine and penalty alongwith Customs duty payable. But the seized Gold has already been disposed of through the State Bank of India, by the department on observance of necessary formalities. Accordingly, the appellant was allowed Refund of Rs. 11,15,904/-, after adjusting the amount of Rs. 77,250/-, as sale proceeds of one kg. Gold. By the impugned order, the Commissioner(Appeals) held that if the department has not put Sri Soni to notice under section 150 of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid to the owner of the goods : [Provided that where it is not possible to pay the balance of sale proceeds, if any, to the owner of the goods within a period of six months from the date of sale of such goods or such further period as the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] may allow, such balance of sale proceeds shall be paid to the Central Government.]" 4. On plain reading of Section 150, it is clear that where any goods, not being confiscated goods, are to be sold after notice to the owner of the goods following the procedure as specified therein. In the present case, on perusal of the order dated 19.07.2010 of the Assistant Commissioner, it is evident that the seized Gold was released on payment of Redempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upon the Board s Circular No.711/4/2006 Cus (AS) dated-14/02/2006. In that Circular, it is clarified that the requirement to issue notice to the owner of the goods shall also obtain in case all appeal/legal remedies have not been exhausted by the owner of the goods. In the present case, all appeal/legal remedies have already been exhausted and the confiscation was not set aside. Hence, the said circular is not supporting the case of the appellant. Hence, I agree with the submissions of the ld. A.R. for the Revenue. I also noticed that the respondent accepted to receive the sale proceeds before the Adjudicating Authority. 7. In view of the above discussion, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the order the Adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
