9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both dated 13.08.2001 which were cleared duty free under transit bond. The entire consignment was seized in transit by DRI as the same contained 1,62,473 L.Mtrs of fabrics as against the declared quantity of 78.605 L.Mtrs i.e. excess quantity of 83,868 L. Mtrs. Appellant deposited duty amount of Rs. 42,31,027/- involved on the said excess quantity vide challan dated 03.09.2001 and 12.10.2011. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla adjudicated the case vide OIO No. KDL/COMMR/26/2003 dated 05.05.2003 under which he appropriated the duty amount paid by the appellant; confiscated the declared as well as undeclared quantity of import goods, imposed redemption fine of Rs. 15 Lakh and 20 Lakh, respectively; imposed penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs each on the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tself and Hon'ble High Court passed an order dated 21.09.2007 in this regard by giving liberty to the appellant to file an appeal against Tribunal's order within three weeks. However, no such appeal was filed by the appellant and thus Tribunal's earlier order attained finality. Since the confiscated goods were not redeemed by the appellant, the same was auctioned by the department in the month of December 2006 resulting realization of sale proceeds of Rs. 50Lakhs after giving a notice to the appellant. Subsequently, appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 42,31,027/- before jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat being the duty amount paid. Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Surat rejected the refund claim vide OI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected the refund claim of duty of Rs. 42,31,027/- as time barred. He also rejected the refund claim of the appellant regarding refund of sale proceeds of the auctioned goods under OIO No. KDL/Assistant Commissioner/HCU/176/Ref/2012 dated 23/ 24.01.2012. In the appeal before the first appellate authority also appellant did not succeed. 3. Shri Willington Christian (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant again narrated the facts of the case that sale proceedings of the auctioned goods should be refunded to the appellant. 4. Shri Jitendra Nair (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that as per Section 126 of the Customs Act, 1962 after confiscation the goods confiscated belong to the Central Government. That appellant did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
