9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... izure case. The goods being perishable in nature, were released provisionally on payment of security of the full value of Rs. 1,56,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector of Customs and Central Excise at Shillong and thereafter the Collector of Customs Central Excise passed the following finding and order was passed : "Findings I have gone through the case records including reply to the Show Cause Notice, submissions made at the time of personal hearing and further written submissions made at the time of personal hearing. I find that out of 144 bags of poppy seeds seized the party had purchased 56 bags of poppy seeds locally in Imphal and 76 bags were released to them by the Customs at Dimapur and 12 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fails. Order Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I hold that out of 144 bags of poppy seeds seized by Customs, 88 bags were legally procured by the parties. Remaining 56 bags were, therefore, obtained clandestinely and therefore, are confiscated absolutely under Section 111(b) (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. l,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) on Shri Dharmavir Choudhury, Thangal Bazar, Imphal. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 500/-(Rupees five hundred) on Shri Jhumermal Jain, Shop No. 5, T.R. Phukan Road, Guwahati and Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) on M/s. Assam Haryana Roadways (Pvt) Ltd., Guwahati for arranging sale and transport of the goods u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led poppy seeds from Burma and the same is not liable to confiscation. Since these poppy seeds are already released in favour of the appellant on deposit of Rs. 1,56,800/- and since these are not liable to be confiscated, the appropriation of this amount towards confiscation is not warranted in law. So also the imposition of penalty on the appellant is not legal and we set aside the same." 5. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed with the consequential relief. In spite of this order and in spite of the application filed on 13-12-1993 and reminder on 29-8-1994 and letter 1-6-1995 and 26-9-1996 the amount was not refunded back. Hence writ application for refund of the amount along with the prayer for payment of interest. 6. I have heard Sr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aws. (ii) Next case relied on is 1995 (80) E.L.T. 777 (Bom.) (Amin Medhi Merchant v. S.M. Karnik, Asstt. Coll. of Customs, Bombay). That was a case when refund claim filed in April, 1982 but rejected on appeal. The appellate Collector accepted the plea of assessee and directed for refund of amount in question. Appeal was filed by the department to the CEGAT against the order of Appellate Collector which was rejected in May, 1986, still refund not granted till 1995 and in the facts of the case the refund was ordered with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order of the appellate Tribunal till the date of payment. (iii) Next case relied on is 1991 (55) E.L.T. 167 (Bom.) (Vidarbha Vineer Industries v. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.) where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
