9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefits. Revenue proceeded against him by issue of Show Cause Notice dated 15-11-1999. The original authority confiscated the car absolutely and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant vide Order in Original 6/2000, dated 4-2-2000. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order No. 140/2000, dated 7-4-2000 ordered pre-deposit of Rs. 50,000/- as a condition for hearing the appeal under Section 129E of the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order in Appeal No. 11/2002-Cus., dated 25-1-2002 ordered release of the car on payment of Redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and further he reduced the personal penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. The appellant addressed the department vide his letters dated 7-2-2002, 20- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; The Order in appeal 11/2002, dated 25-1-2002, wherein the appellant was allowed to redeem the car has become final as there was no appeal against that order by the Revenue. Hence it is binding on the respondent to implement that order and release the car. Instead, to cover up the lapses of his Officers who sold the car while appeal proceedings of the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was pending respondent justified their action of disposal of the car in accordance with law, which is contrary to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Court and Tribunals. (ii) Even though the following judgments were cited before the respondent he distinguis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; The respondent has failed to observe that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- paid towards pre-deposit should have been refunded to the appellants. (vi) The respondent has failed to intimate the appellate authority that the car in question has been already disposed of as required when the appeal proceedings were in progress. Nor the department had put in notice to the appellant. This clearly smacks of mala fide on the respondent. 5.The learned JDR reiterated the points in the Order in Original. 6.We have gone through the records of the case carefully. Every citizen knows that the order passed by a judicial authority is not final. There is always recourse to appellate forum. When an Assistant Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order and subject to the deposit of the said amount, the deposit of balance amount of penalty was dispensed with and its recovery stayed pending examination of the appeal in its turn for decision on merit. There was no stay on the absolute confiscation of the car as ordered by the original adjudicating authority. The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which is an interim order under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 does not speak anything about stay of the confiscation of the car and other articles found in the car. Further as per Section 126 of the Customs Act, 1961, on confiscation, the property vests in Central Government. Therefore, the department was free to deal with the goods in any manner deemed fit in accordance with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants. It was held that the department has to refund the declared value of the goods with interest per annum from the date of auction of the goods. 10.In the Spring RPG India Ltd. case, while passing strictures against the Customs Department, the Delhi High Court has observed - "It had, in our opinion, a moral obligation to inform the CEGAT as also the Supreme Court of India that the goods in question have already been sold in auction. It failed and/or neglected to do so. Prior to putting the goods in question to auction, it was expected that the petitioner would atleast be put to notice that on payment of additional duty it could get the imported goods cleared. It is really also a matter of great surprise that the Airport Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v.), W.B., reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 283 (T) = 2004 (63) RLT 196 (T-Kol.). 14.Normally, an appellate order is not expected to worsen the situation of an appellant. In this case, had the appellant not appealed, his liability would be only Rupees one lakh penalty without the car. Strangely, after getting Appellate order, due to the departmental action, the Appellant ends up with a liability of Rs. 1,29,478/- (Rs. 5,39,578/- - Rs. 4,10,000/-). Strange are the ways of bureaucracy. It appears that the remedy is worse than the disease. 15.In view of our observations, we hold that the ratio of all the above-mentioned cases is squarely applicable to the present case. It is very clear that the department has sold the goods on the underst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
