2017 (11) TMI 1171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ant 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 appellant, the appellant was required to take care of the said goods. 2.  The brief facts of the case are that vide order dated 29.08.2000, demand of duty was confirmed along with interest and penalty was also imposed. The sa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant was forced to make another payment of 34,00,000/-. On 26.03.2008, the Hon'ble Apex Court remanded the matter to this Tribunal for fresh adjudication and on 08.09.2009, this Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the appellant and hold that no demand is sustainable against the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant wrote various letters to the department stating the fact that the seize .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e the property of the Revenue but the said goods have been given on superdginama to the appellant for safe custody. It is the fact on record that the goods were in safe custody of the appellant and Revenue could claim those goods any time. It is further submitted that immediately after seizure of the goods, the appellant explained the reasons and sought release of the goods but no action has been .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hand, the Ld. AR opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that the appellant has given undertaking that they will keep the goods in safe custody which means that they was required to keep safe of the said goods and will not disposal of the said goods, therefore, it was the duty of the appellant to keep the goods in good condition which they failed to do so. In that circumstances, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o the request made by the appellant in releasing of the said goods, despite the goods of perishable in nature. In that circumstances, Revenue is responsible of the said goods 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X