TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods was done after 07.10.2006 after giving a notice to the appellants. The goods confiscated by the Adjudicating authority were not redeemed, within the stipulated time either after Adjudication order or its modification by CESTAT. As per Section 126 of the Customs Act, 1962, the title of the confiscated goods vests with the Central Government and appellant had no claim on such goods and its sale proceeds - Appellant could have a valid claim on the remaining sale proceeds only if he had contested the confiscation of goods in appeal to higher courts and got a favourable verdict. In the absence of any such contest and also not taking redemption of the goods, appellant has no case and the order passed by the first appellate authority is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant. Since the appellant failed to redeem the goods, the same were sold through e-auction after following the procedures given under Section 150 wherein sale proceeds of ₹ 50 Lakhs was realised. Aggrieved with the order, appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal and Tribunal vide order No. A/681 to 683/WZB/2005-C-II dated 19.7.2005 confirmed the duty payment as uncontested but reduced fine and penalty amounts on the appellant and their Director and set-aside the penalty on their authorised signatory. While passing the said order, Tribunal mistakenly ordered reduction of penalty on the appellant from ts. 15 Lakh to ₹ 7.50 Lakhs as against the penalty of ₹ 5 Lakhs originally imposed. Penalty on the Director as reduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction. An appeal preferred by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) was also rejected vide OIA No. RKA/784/SRT-I/2009 dated 04.11.2009 on the same ground of jurisdiction. Besides appellant was advised to file the refund claim before competent authority. Commissioner (Appeals) also ordered that rejection of refund claim on the question of jurisdiction by the Central Excise officers would not act as bar to file fresh application of refund before competent authority. However, appellant filed another refund claim before Commissioner of Customs, Kandla on an entirely different ground i.e. for refund of ₹ 50 Lakh (less adjustments against unpaid penalty amounts) which was realised by Revenue against sale proceeds of the goods. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the option of seeking redemption. That due notice of auction of goods was given to the appellant who did not raise any objection to the act of auction on the grounds that he is agitating the issue of confiscation. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is observed from the case records that goods were confiscated by Commissioner of Customs on 05.5.2003 and option was given to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of Redemption fine of ₹ 20 Lakh within 15 days. The redemption fine so imposed by the adjudicating authority was reduced to ₹ 7.5 Lakh as a result of CESTATs order No. A/681-683/WZB/2005 dated 19.7.2005. In spite of the above modification, appellant did not redeem the goods. Auction of the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
