Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (6) TMI 535

it petition - Held that:- This Court is not inclined to accept the said contention for the reason that the appellant had already accepted the value of the diamonds, fixed by CEGAT at ₹ 4,27,000/- and also paid the redemption fine. Appellant cannot approbate and reprobate. At one stage, for the purpose of redeeming the goods, the appellant had accepted the value of diamonds as ₹ 4,27,000/-, which decision cannot be retracted, by filing a writ petition. - Having accepted the same, contrary contention of the appellant that at the time of seizure, the value of diamonds, was ₹ 40 Lakhs, cannot be accepted - appeal dismissed. - W. A. No. 850 of 2018 - 4-6-2018 - S. Manikumar And V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ. For the Appellant : .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

and accordingly, paid redemption fine. Decision of CEGAT, was not challenged. 3. Diamonds were not returned. Hence, petition is filed in W.P.No.10707 of 1998, for a mandamus, directing Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Tiruchirapallai, and Assistant Commissioner of Central Excises, Customs Division, Nagapattinam, respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.No.10707 of 1998, to deliver 485 numbers of diamonds seized and also to pay interest on the value of the aforesaid diamonds estimated at ₹ 40 Lakhs at the rate of 18% per annum, from the date on which they were bound to be returned. 4. Adverting to the abovesaid facts, grounds and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, writ Court, vide order dated 19.04.2004 in W.P.No.10707 of .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

hall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. Again, under Section 125 of the Act, the officer adjudging the confiscation of goods has the power to order payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. Therefore, it is clear that the Act provides for return of the goods under certain conditions which definitely implies that the goods shall be secured with due care and caution. 12. In Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat [(1994) 4 SCC 1] the question was what is the tortious liability of the State when a 'Reclamation bundh' was constructed by the State Government without heeding to the appellant's request to change the location and it resulted in the flood water entering the appellant's factory .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

f damages when duty is owed to a section of public and cannot be enforced if an individual sustains damages to whom the Corporation owes no duty and no private interest is infringed. Beach of statutory duty, therefore, requires to be examined in the context in which the duty is created not towards the individual, but has its effect on the right of individual vis-a-vis the society. ..... The action for damages will not lie if the damage suffered by him is not of the type intended to be guarded against. It seems to be contrary to statutory intendment to impose liability upon public body for a thing for which no reasonable care in the performance of the concerned act could be inferred from the language used in the statute; it ought not to be s .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

on. When the petitioners paid the redemption fine, the respondents ought to have at least returned the value of the diamonds, as found in the order of the CEGAT, without prejudice to their rights. But till 2003, they did not do so. 16. Hence, I fix the compensation payable to the petitioners at ₹ 5,00,000/- plus a sum of 18% per annum on ₹ 4,27,000/- from 7.10.1996 to 17.2.2003. This is not awarded as interest, but only as compensation in the absence of any other parameter to arrive at the value of compensation. The writ petition is ordered as above. 5. Though, Mr.R.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the appellant reiterated, that the value of the diamonds seized, was ₹ 40 Lakhs and that therefore, this Court, should direct mo .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||