TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents. [Order]. This is an appeal by Revenue against order-in-appeal No. 296-CE/CHD/91, dated 27-2-1991. The facts of the case are in a seizure case the Superintendent (Tech) vide order-in-original No. 86/CE/83, dated 7-11-1983 allowed the respondents to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 5000/- as redemption fine and penalty of Rs. 3000/-, in addition to duty leviable on goods thereo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demption Fine as reduced in order-in-appeal dated 15-5-1986 by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi. This request was rejected by the Superintendent (Tech.) vide his order-in-original dated 24-11-1987 on the ground that the respondents had not requested for release of goods within three months. The Collector (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his impugned order dated 27-2-1991 held that respondents are just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such as could deteriorate. Once the Collector (Appeals) in his order-in-appeal dated 15-5-1986 disposed of the order-in-original by reducing the final payment to Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/-, the Department is bound to implement this order-in-appeal by at least release of the sale proceeds of goods after deduction of final payment as adjudged. In fact, it is correctly held by the Collector (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not being exercised till the disposal of the appeal. Merely because the respondents did not intimate the fact of going into appeal in regard to the goods confiscated would not have the effect of vesting these goods in the Govt., particularly when the order of the Asstt. Collector was subject matter of the appeal. It is held by the Tribunal in the case of Collector (Customs) Madras v. Shri T.D. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
