Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
 
Home Case Index All Cases Customs Tri Customs + Tri
← Previous Next →
TMI ID= 210556
  • Contents
  • Cases Cited

2012 (2) TMI 146 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

M/s Balaji Enterprises Versus CC, Jaipur

Interest on the refund amount of pre-deposit and sale proceeds of confiscated goods order for absolute confiscation of gold bars on 22.05.98 Commissioner (Customs) vide order dated 11.12.01 permitted for release of 21 gold biscuits in de-novo proceedings gold bars being sold by Department on 09.03.01 Held that:- In view of decision in case of Miles India Ltd. Vs ACC (1984 - TMI - 41925 - Supreme Court Of India) holding that the authorities created by a statute are governed by the provisions of statute, it is laid down that in as much as there is no provision regarding payment of interest in respect of sale proceeds of confiscated goods, the same cannot be ordered.

Since Commissioner has not given any finding regarding interest on refund of pre-deposit, matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority Decided partly in favor of Revenue.

No.- Customs Appeal No.524 of 2006

Dated.- January 13, 2012

Citations:

  1. MILES INDIA LIMITED Versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - 1984 (4) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  2. OVERSEAS TRADING CORPN. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, LUCKNOW - 2005 (8) TMI 254 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Mr. Mathew John, JJ.

Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Mr. Mathew John, JJ.  

Present for Respondent Shri Amrish Jan, SDR  

Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:  

On matter being called, nobody appeared on behalf of appellants. They have filed written submissions which we have gone through. We have also heard ld. SDR.  

2. As per facts on regard, gold bars were seized from the residential premises of Shri D.R.Jain on 23.04.97. Subsequently proceedings were initiated for imposition of penalty against them for confiscation of gold bars. Order-in-Original dtd. 22.05.98 ordered absolute confiscation of the gold bars and imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- on them.  

3. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal along with stay petition which was disposed of vide stay order dtd. 7.08.98 directing the appellants to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The same was deposited by the appellants. Subsequently vide final order dtd. 18.10.99, the impugned order for confiscation of gold bars and imposition of the penalty, was set aside and the matter was remanded. In de-novo proceedings, the Commissioner (Customs) passed Order-in-Original dtd. 11.12.2001 permitting release of 21 gold biscuits. However, no penalty was imposed by the Commissioner.  

4. The said order of Commissioner was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed vide final order 11.01.2003.  

5. In the meanwhile, the 21 gold biscuits were sold by the department on 09.03.2001 for Rs.10,33,263/-. When the proceedings attaining finality, the appellants applied for refund of pre-deposit of Rs.50,000/- deposited for release of gold bars. The same was subsequently released to the appellants.  

6. The dispute in the present appeal relates to interest on the pre-deposit, subsequently refunded to the appellant and on the amount of sale proceeds of the confiscated goods subsequently given to the appellants.  

7. As regards, the interest on the refund of sale proceeds of confiscated goods are concerned, the Commissioner has observed that the issue stands covered by the Tribunal s decision in the case of Overseas Trading Corporation reported in 2006(195)ELT242(Tri.Del.). After going through the said judgement, we find that it stands held that there is no provision for grant of interest on refund of sale proceeds of the confiscated goods.  

8. For arriving at the above finding, the Tribunal has relied on Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Miles India Ltd. reported in 1987(30)ELT641 laying down that the authorities created by a statute are governed by the provisions of statute. We agree with the above decision laying down that in as much as there is no provision regarding payment of interest in respect of sale proceeds of confiscated goods, the same cannot be ordered. We accordingly reject the appellants appeal on the above ground.  

9. As regards, the payment on interest of the refund amount of pre-deposit, we note that though it is the ld. SDR s contention that refund of pre-deposit was applied on 20.08.2005 and the same refunded on 26.09.2005 but we find that Commissioner has not given any finding on the same and has rejected the appeal only on the point of interest on refund of sale proceeds. In as much there is no finding by Commissioner(Appeals) on the above point, we find it deem fit to remand the matter to the Appellate Authority for giving an appropriate decision on the same after considering the relied upon judgements by the appellants.  

10. The appeal is partly rejected and partly remanded in above terms.  

(Pronounced in the Open Court on 13.01.12)  

 
 
← Previous Next →
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version