TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndication in the Panchnama that these goods have foreign markings. The Revenue had not disputed this fact - there is no material available on record that the cue pieces were not bearing any foreign markings. So, there is no reason to interfere with the order of First Appellate Authority. The confiscated gold has already been disposed by the department. The Commissioner(Appeals) observed that the appellants are entitled to the sale proceeds minus the fine etc., if any, as provided under section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/100/10 - 75647/2017 - Dated:- 2-2-2017 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri S.K. Naskar, AC(AR) for the Revenue Shri Arijit Chakraborty, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rused the appeal records. 3. For proper appreciation of the case, the relevant portion of the findings of the Commissioner(Appeals) is reproduced below:- It is seen that the description of goods in the invoice matches with the description of the gold bar. However, the serial number, as per the panchnama, is not there since the same seems to have been tampered with. From this, no conclusion can be drawn whether this gold bar was the one which was purchased by the appellant from M/s. Anand Silver Pvt. Ltd. Since the possibility can be either ways cannot be ruled out, therefore, a conclusion can only be drawn by making further inquiry, at the source. The confiscation of this gold bar in that case is set aside and the matter remanded to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the confiscated gold has already been disposed by the department. The Commissioner(Appeals) observed that the appellants are entitled to the sale proceeds minus the fine etc., if any, as provided under section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), W.B., Culcutt v. Ratan Kr. Saha[2005 (189) ELT 111 (Cal)] directed the department to refund such value with interest. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below: 5.3 In the facts of this case, the sale of the goods might cause immense loss to the petitioner, but when the petitioner himself valued the goods at ₹ 2,40,000/- all by himself in a statement under Section 108 which has an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
