9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2024 will serve to dispose of this matter. In terms of the order dated 24.04.2024, the respondent No. 2 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 60 Lakhs to the writ petitioner on sufficient proof of identity being provided, within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date this order is presented before the respondent No. 2, and if the respondent No. 2, fails to comply, interest on the expiry of the said 8(eight) weeks shall be payable on the refund amount at the rate of 12% per annum. The petition is allowed. - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. THANGKHIEW, JUDGE Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. N. Dasgupta, Adv. With Mr. S.D. Upadhya, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with Ms. A. Pradhan, Adv. ORAL: 1. The brief fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e date of the order passed by the learned Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata, i.e. 09.12.2020. In support of his case, the learned counsel has relied upon various decisions of the High Court of Calcutta and Delhi, wherein it has been held that department was bound to pay the value of goods assessed at the time of seizure. He therefore submits that the petitioner is therefore entitled to similar relief. 3. Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. A. Pradhan, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the betelnuts were destroyed inasmuch as, it was unfit for human consumption and as per the Disposal Manual of the Customs Department, Commissioners have full powers to order destruction of goods, such as food stuff, spices and other goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this matter. WP(C) No. 192 of 2023 Date of Order: 24.04.2024 Smti. Laltanpuii Versus The Union of India Anr. HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. THANGKHIEW, JUDGE Appearance : For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. N. Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. S.D. Upadhya, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with Ms. A. Pradhan, Adv. 1. The only question to be decided in the present writ petition is with regard to the quantum of refund, that the respondents are liable to afford the writ petitioner. This is view of the fact that, the order of the Tribunal, wherein it was found that the goods were neither imported nor proved to be smuggled, though assailed before the Division Bench of this Court, and ultimately before the Hon ble Supreme Court, the case of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
