9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said writ petition was filed by the respondent to forbear the appellants from auctioning the 178 watches seized from the respondent till the disposal of the appeal filed by the respondent before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("CESTAT" for brevity) against the Order-in-Appeal, dated 05.12.2019, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai. 3.The said appeal was preferred by the respondent, challenging the Order-in-Original dated 24.09.2018, in and by which, the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Chennai-III), directed confiscation of 178 foreign made watches of various brands under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 ("the Act" for brevity), revalued the confiscated watches at Rs. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g November, 2021. 6.The legal question which may arise before the Tribunal is as to whether, in an appeal filed by the respondent, aggrieved by the Order-in- Original dated 24.09.2018, the respondent can be put to a disadvantageous position, in other words, in an appeal filed by the respondent, can an order adverse to the interest of the respondent be passed, when admittedly, such portion of the order was not questioned before the First Appellate Authority. 7.In the case on hand, the Original Authority directed redemption of the seized goods on payment of redemption fine and appropriate Customs Duty. The respondent was on appeal before the First Appellate Authority, questioning the correctness of the entire order, that is, on the revaluat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the respondent while approaching the Tribunal, therefore, the appellant/Department cannot initiate any recovery proceedings consequent upon the Order-in-Appeal, dated 05.12.2019. 10.The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the contention which was raised before the learned Single Bench was that the Circular, dated 10.03.2017, would not be applicable, as the said Circular deals with recovery during pendency of litigation and the contention of the Department was that the watches will deplete in value and because of the electronic items, battery, etc., they are to be treated as perishable goods and in the event if the goods are not auctioned, the Department will not be able to recover the Duty, penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
