TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grieved with the said order the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was disposed of vide order Nos. A-1246-1245/Cal/99, dated 12-11-1999. Vide the said order the impugned order of the Commissioner was set aside. It was observed by the Tribunal as under :- As such, I find that the metal scrap in question is entitled to be released and the penalty upon the first as also on the second appellant is required to be set aside. I order accordingly and allow both the appeals with consequential reliefs to the appellants . 2. On receipt of the above order the appellant approached the Commissioner on 12-1-2000 to implement the above order of the Tribunal. Another regd. letter was sent on 9-2-2000 making a request for issuance of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the seized goods is set aside, Govt. is under obligation to return the seized goods to the owner or to pay the market price of such goods as on the date of setting aside the order of confiscation by the appellate authority. 7. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhian Singh v. UOI - AIR 1958 S.C. 274 observed that where Govt. is unable to return the seized goods to the owner, when order of confiscation is set aside by the appellate authority, the Govt. is under an obligation to pay its market price to the owner of the goods. 8. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Memon Md. - AIR 1967 S.C. 1885 it was held as under :- On appeal the Tribunal sets aside the order of confiscation and directed return of the seized goods. Pendin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ires that respondent should be directed to pay the appellant the seizure value of the goods, which was the value arrived at by them during the seizure. To the similar effect is the decision of the Tribunal in the case of U. Enowell Khonglan - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 80 (Tribunal). 11. The ratio of all the above decisions is to the effect that on success in appeal proceedings the appellant is entitled to the return of the seized and confiscated goods. If the same are not available, the value adopted by the Revenue at the time of seizure of the goods has to be returned. In the present case the department itself has valued the waste and scrap in question at the time of seizure at Rs. 9,09,200/-. It is not understood as to how such a high valued goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
