9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after giving notice to the owner. That apart, ordinarily until finalisation of the proceedings the goods could not be sold except under an order passed in connection with the proceedings or in case of perishable goods. However, in this case, the goods were not perishable. Still the department had sold the goods during the pendency of the appeal without following the legal formalities. Therefore, on account of being successful in the appeal, the dealer asked for return of the goods. The goods having been sold, the Customs Authority was disabled from returning the goods. The owner claimed for the value of the goods. The dispute related to the value of the goods. The dealer had given its value in a statement under Section 108 at Rs. 2,40,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said question, we may refer to the order passed by the learned Tribunal itself at page 22 of the Paper Book. The Tribunal had discussed the decision in Union of India v. Sambhu Nath Karmakar, 1986 (26) E.L.T. 719 of this Court dealing with the similar question laying down that the market value has to be returned. This High Court being the jurisdictional Court, the decision thereof is binding on the Tribunal. It had also considered the decision in Dhian Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 274; State of Gujarat v. Memon Md. Haji Hasan, AIR 1967 SC 885 and the decision of Bombay High Court in Giridharlal Kalyandas Advani v. Union of India, 1992 (58) E.L.T. 453 and Gauhati High Court in Biplab Rakshit v. Collector of Customs, 1996 (88) E.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be any mode of evaluation of the goods seized to be so authenticated to be acceptable to the Court or the Tribunal. In case of a dispute between the parties, with regard to the valuation of the goods, unless there is an adjudication on the question of the value of the goods since settled between the parties or by reason of certain orders passed in the proceeding holding the value put forth at the time of seizure as the value of the goods, the same cannot be accepted to be the value of the goods. At the same time, the value of the goods put forth by the dealer being his own admission, he cannot get rid of it unless such valuation is overruled and set aside in a proper adjudication proceeding. From the records before us, we do not find that o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ab Rakshit (supra) have taken the same view. At the same time, Delhi High Court in the case of Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi, 2002 (143) E.L.T. 60 held that the goods are supposed to be returned and in case it is sold the value thereof is supposed to be paid. 5.3 In the facts of this case, the sale of the goods might cause immense loss to the petitioner, but when the petitioner himself valued the goods at Rs. 2,40,000/- all by himself in a statement under Section 108 which has an evidentiary value, he is estopped from claiming anything more than that as market value unless otherwise established. But at the same time, we cannot but observe that the Department had committed an error in sel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
