TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all bearings and the Indian Currency and the trucks. The Original Authority confiscated the goods and imposed penalties. Ultimately, the matter went to the Tribunal. By Final Order Nos. A/311-314 of 2000-NB (DB), dated 5-4-2000, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of Rs. 3,44,000/- of Indian Currency and extended other reliefs, which are not relevant here. In view of the order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed a refund claim on 30-11-2007. The appellant claimed the refund of the Indian Currency of Rs. 3,44,000/- with interest. The Original Authority held that the refund of Rs. 3,44,000/- is to be made by Shri H.P. Goyal (i.e. Husband of the appellant). It has been observed that the appellants have no valid ground to sustain the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erusal of the records, the relevant provisions of Section 110(2) is reproduced below :- (2) Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized : Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the [Commissioner of Customs] for a period not exceeding six months. 5. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Kandla v. Deluxe Exports reported in 2001 (137) E.L.T. 1336 (Tribunal-Mumbai) following the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Kantilal Somehand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssession they were seized . It appears from the Panchnama that the goods were seized from the possession of the appellant. The Original Authority observed that the amount may be refunded to Shri H.P. Goyal, Husband of the appellant. It is a fact that the amount was seized neither from the possession of Shri H.P. Goyal nor he has claimed for it. On the other hand, it is revealed from the Panchnama that the Indian Currency was seized as the appellant could not produce any evidence for the legal acquisition. Therefore, the amount should be released to the appellant. 8. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order is set aside and it is directed to release the amount to the appellant, from whose possession it was seized. In this conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
