9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s : (a) The Commissioner's order regarding extension of time under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for issue of notice was not to be interfered with; (b) The Petitioner was required to file necessary modification to the Bill of Entry for provisional release of the goods under seizure and for this purpose they should produce SIL licences to cover the above said provisional release of goods after assessment of the goods under seizure; (c) As regards the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs, it was found as follows : "(C1) The detention letter to the Custom have been issued by D.R.I, on 2-3-2001 and the cloves were ordered to be withdrawn from the custodians Aucti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of Rs. 20 lakhs'. Recorded seizure is not essential, and hold whatever is 'detained' or 'taken/seized' has either to be adjudicated or released within the time frame a Section 110(2). Therefore Cloves and amount of Rs. 20 lakhs stands released from seizure/detention." The said Rs. 20 lakhs were ordered to be refunded. 3. Revenue has taken the following points in this ROM application : "11. The department says and submits that the order of Hon'ble CEGAT, manifests a mistake apparent on the face of the record. It is respectfully submitted that the said amount was a voluntary deposit by the party in relation to the earlier 27 consignments which were already cleared and diverted prior to the present action. Huge duty evasio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the clearance of cloves under seizure in (ii) at least it could be on provisional assessment.' Thus the Hon'ble Tribunal had itself come to the conclusion that the issue of diversion of imported goods from 100% EOU and the issue of undervaluation of the live consignment were different and distinct issues to be dealt with separately. 13. The department says and submits that the said amount of Rs. 20 lakhs were paid by the party by two separate demand drafts as follows : (i) DD No. 331400, dated 11-5-2001 for Rs. 15 lakhs. (ii) DD No. 331421, dated 11-5-2001 for Rs. 5 lakhs. The said demand drafts were deposited in the Government Treasury on 31-5-2001 i.e. much before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be got converted into a co-operation by sitting on perishable goods and not clearing the same. The fear of the goods deteriorating in value and the deprivation of the same to the importer, would constitute an undue influence of the investigator on the importers, if not harassment of the Importers. We cannot be a mute spectator to the same. Non-clearance of the goods, covered by the subject Bill of Entry, which are perishable items liable for deterioration and spoilage in quality, could be causing an uncalled for pressure. This is also apparent from the fact, that the appellants produced Rs. 20 lakhs on 11-5-2001 or thereabout without any demand of duty or otherwise made in writing, made over the same. Not only they produced this large sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd they were coercively reduced by a challan, by the departmental officers, as deposit of duty. (b) The Tribunal had come to its own finding as regards nature of Rs. 20 lakhs under the dispute. The Tribunal had also observed that there was no application regarding extension of time limit, in the proceedings, before the lower authorities as regards the seizure of this Rs. 20 lakhs. (c) That order has been arrived at, after considering the facts on record and the submission made by the DRI. It is found that there is no error apparent on record brought out in the said ROM application now filed by Revenue. (d) The Revenue has totally mis-construed the scope of ROM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or arriving at the conclusion that the payment of Rs. 20 lakhs was in respect of the previous 27 consignments. Be that as it may. The finding of the Tribunal as regards Rs. 20 lakhs is that it was an amount taken possession of by the DRI officers on 11-5-2001 and deposited by them in the treasury. The Tribunal comes to a further conclusion that no man of commerce much less an alleged evader of tax, as alleged, would voluntarily part with large sums, that too, without a written demand under law, and thereafter accepted the plea of coercion towards recovery of this amount made before them. Thereafter relying on the instructions of Ministry of Law - Central Apprising Manual Volume V, Chapter II Paras 3(a), 4(a)(ia), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii) they co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
