9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeal. 2. Briefly stated, fact of the case is that Air Intelligence Unit of Customs, CSI Airport, Mumbai intercepted one passenger on 19.10.2006 carrying 106 numbers of traveller's cheques of the above referred amount and after protracted litigation, redemption fine and personal penalty that was confirmed at Rs.10,01,000/- (total of both) was being debited from the deposited amount of Rs.47,86,334/- plus pre-deposit amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and rest of amount of Rs.41,85,334/- was sanctioned by the Refund Sanctioning Authority namely the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Central Refund Cell to the Appellant, who established ownership over the seized property (amount). It has approached the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking applicable inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raction under Ostensive Authority of law and the said finding having been affirmed the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2018 (360) ELT A257 (S.C.), not granting interest on the refunded amount by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order is unsustainable both in law and facts. 4. Learned Authorised Representative objected the submission and supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that, the amount that was seized and deposited in the account of the Revenue- Department in the State Bank of India, being not a duty that was due for refund, cannot be refunded with interest, for which he sought for no interference of the Tribunal in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I have perused the case record and gone thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at money and even bank account can be defined as property under Section 100 of the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code, prevailed at that time, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the findings of this Tribunal in the said decisions, as has been made in para 8, it reads: "8. As per Article 300A of Constitution of India, also no person shall be deprived of his property, save by authority of law. Once confiscation order about impugned currency get set aside. It is clear that currency in question has been appellant's property. He cannot be deprived of the same and is entitled for benefits arising out of said property. Hence interest accrued on the amount in question during the period it was in fixed deposit is the property of the owner of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking contrary view will be no longer the good law." 6. Therefore, in carrying-forward the judicial precedent set on the issue for decades and while going with the observation made in the above referred paragraph in Matta Paints and Hardware Store (supra) judgment alongwith observation of the Tribunal that had the amount in question being kept in fixed deposit by the Appellant himself for all these years, it would have earned a handsome amount of interest and therefore, retention of the said interest could be considered as on unjust enrichment on the part of the Respondent-Department as well as deprivation of Appellant's right to his property, the following order is passed. THE ORDER 6. The appeal is allowed and the Appellant is entitl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
