9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as despite request made by the appellant failed to release the goods which were not liable to be seized as per the final of this Tribunal. As goods have become obsolete in the custody of the Revenue, who was the owner of the said goods, therefore, the appellant is required to be compensated. - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/340/2012 - FINAL ORDER NO: 62066/2017 - Dated:- 31-10-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri. Surbhi Sinha, Advocate- for the appellant Shri. Satyapal, AR- for the respondent ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the compensation has been denied to the appellant on the premises that goods detained and were in the custody of the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the appellant premises and as per the order of this Tribunal, the appellant is to be paid the amount equal to the value of the goods worth of ₹ 29,34,261/- but no action was taken. On 15.03.2011, the claim of the appellant for compensation of the detained goods has been denied. The matter was listed before the ld. Commissioner (A) who also denied the compensation of vide order dated 18.10.2011. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The ld. Counsel of the appellant submits that in this case during the recovery proceedings, in pursuant to the order of this Tribunal which was pending before the Hon ble Apex Court, the goods were worth of ₹ 29,34,261/- has been seized and seized goods became the property of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods in good condition which they failed to do so. In that circumstances, the claim of the compensation is rightly rejected. 5. Heard the parties and considered the condition. 6. Admittedly, the seized goods are the property of the Revenue and under superdginama has to be given for keeping the goods in safe custody which means that the person who is executing the superdginama is not the only holder/keeper of the goods but he will keep the same in safe custody which means that the goods will not be taken away by them. Moreover, they are not entitled to use the goods and this is the property of the Revenue. It is the duty of the Revenue to keep the goods in good condition as they were seized the goods. Moreover, in this case the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
