9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever was not granted. On an appeal by the petitioner before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata, the learned Tribunal by order dated 09.12.2020, set aside the impugned seizure and allowed the appeal. The said order of the CESTAT on an appeal by the respondent No. 2, was then affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.10.2021, and was further affirmed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 31.10.2022, wherein the SLP against the order dated 28.10.2021, of this Court was dismissed. However, the orders passed by the Tribunal, which have been affirmed by this Court and the Supreme Court, were not implemented by the respondent No. 2, and in the meanwhile the seized goods had been destroyed du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner on 24.09.2018, had requested for provisional release of the seized 32 MT betelnuts, for non-consumption used and has prayed for reduction of price of the damaged seized betelnuts at Rs. 96 per kg, and as such, was fully aware about their value and condition, and therefore the amount as claimed is untenable. He lastly contends that in the instant case, the goods were destroyed and were not disposed of by way of sale auction, and the respondents have not received any revenue by disposing off the said goods by way of destruction. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only issue to be decided is the amount of refund, the petitioner would be entitled to in the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for reduction of price of the damaged betel nuts at Rs. 96 per kilo, which however, were not released provisionally. He submits that if any refund is to be made to the writ petitioner, the condition of the goods which is stated to be not fit for human consumption, should be taken into account. 3. However, Mr. N. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner in reply has submitted that the same is not up for consideration any longer, in view of the findings of the Tribunal, which had been upheld both by the Division Bench of this Court, as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and at the most, the refund should be at the rate of the value at the time of seizure and as recorded in the Tribunal order, at Rs. 88 Lakhs. 4. Having heard the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
