Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (3) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... laiming 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 selling the goods during the pendency of the appeal for which the Department ought to have fixed liability and taken appropriate steps for the purpose of keeping its house in order by awarding exemplary punishment and recovering the loss fixing the liability against the persons responsible after holding proper enquiry, if necessary, even after lapse of such a long time. From the record, it is clear that the respondent is entitled to the market value of the goods as declared by him u/s 108 viz: at Rs. 2,40,000/-, in the absence of any authenticity of the seizure value given in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ms Act prescribes that the goods not confiscated can be sold only through auction or tender or by consent of the owner in any other manner 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion elaborately. Various decisions have been cited. Decision by Jurisdictional High Court : Binding : 4. Before we proceed to decide 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 Kal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n statement under Section 108. Admittedly, the seizure value was entered into in terms of Section 110. Section 110 does not prescribe 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 unle .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... value and not the seizure value. The Bombay High Court in Giridharlal Kalyandas Advani (supra) and the Gauhati High Court in Biplab 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 va .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates