9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Bench)] - This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of the Commisioner dated 31.3.04. The notice issued by the registry to the respondent to the address originally given by the respondent has been returned undelivered stating that no such firm was found in the given address. Therefore, we take up the appeal for final disposal. 2. Heard the learned SDR. 3. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; also imposed penalties on various persons involved in the illegal export. 4. The present appeal is limited to the following issues:- (1) According to the Department, the Commissioner should have confiscated the goods and in the absence of goods should have imposed redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. Fort this purpose, the learned DR relies on the decisions in the case of Mangala Text ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; it is noticed that the goods have already been exported. They were not available for seizure and the question of confiscating them may not arise. A close reading of Section 125 indicates that confiscation which amounts to taking over the ownership of the offending goods, is penal in nature. The offer of option for redemption on payment of fine is in the nature of concession. Ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find that a sum of Rs.10,53,000/- stands deposited by the respondents during the course of investigation. The grievances of the Department that there is no specific order of the Commissioner directing adjustment of the said amount towards amount ordered to be recovered may not be entirely correct. Since the amount of Rs. 39,21,156/- is clearly recoverable in pursuance of Commissioner's or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
