9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... weighing 2910.550 Kgs as on 14-8-1997 is stated to be Rs. 2,13,77,990/- at the rate of Rs. 7345/- per kg. 3. Facts of this case are that 85 bars of silver were seized from the father of the petitioner in the search conducted at his premises on 3-8-65 and 8-8-65 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the same were deposited in Treasury at Chittorgarh. Proceedings under the Treasure and Trove Act, 1878 and the Customs Act followed successively. The father of the petitioner claimed that he had acquired 85 sliver bars more than 30 to 35 years before seizure lawfully and that he had not contravened any of the provisions of the Customs Act so as to suffer confiscation of said silver bars, He had also contested the proceedings under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lal, D.B. Tax Reference Application No. 21/2003. Due to persuit of said proceedings the silver bars had not been returned to the petitioner. 8. Prior to that the petitioner has preferred a writ petition bearing D.B.C. Writ Petition No. 136/99 seeking a mandamous for return of silver in pursuance of the directions contained in order of CEGAT. 9. Since both the matters were interconnected, they were heard in succession. On 30th October, 2003 this Court decided the reference application by holding that the findings recorded by the Tribunal were findings of facts and no question of law arose out of the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, application was dismissed. 10. Pursuant to aforesaid judgment the D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 136/99 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of India, to contend that where confiscation of commodities is held to be illegal on the return of such commodities, the owner is entitled to be compensated by way of interest for such illegal detention. 15. On the other hand, it is contended by the Revenue that there has been no prayer by the applicant and no direction by the Court at any stage for compensating the petitioner by way of interest chargeable on money value of the silver, seized during search proceedings. Therefore, they would not be liable to pay the same. Silver having been returned soon after the decision of Supreme Court dated 3-11-2004 [2005 (185) E.L.T. 339 (S.C.)] it cannot be said that the respondents were not acting in bona fide in persuing their remedies and retai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deterioration of seized commodities, law usually authorises the Competent authority to dispose of such commodities with reasonable time and retain the realisation until final outcome of the proceedings. In such cases ordinarily money so realised if ultimately found to be refundable the same is required to be returned to owners of commodities with interest. 18. However, these principles do not apply on their own face on seizure of commodity like silver which is neither subject to decay nor depreciation in regard to its quality and use with passage of time. The petitioner's case does not come under any of the principles. 19. In the case of commodity, the principle is well settled that if exercise of power in respect of such goods is authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dency of the proceedings and realised money. It became a case of refund of money which was realised by the Revenue by disposing of imported goods under the Customs Act under the order of confiscation which was held to be illegal and interest on refund of such money was allowed. 23. It is contended that when the order of confiscation of goods was held to be bad, the goods were required to be returned to the owner as the order of confiscation was declared illegal on the ground that there was no misdeclaration of the goods and that the applicant was entitled to import those goods on OGL. The confiscated goods, if they had not been disposed of, would have been required to be released in favour of the applicant the applicant could have claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the return of sliver bars in Jan. 2005 the petitioner has suffered any loss on account of non user of silver bars. The silver bars cannot be said to be consumable goods, as was the case before the Supreme Court, which was subject to natural decay and depreciation. At best it can be said that he was deprived of the same for that he may claim damages actually suffered if otherwise admissible in law. There being no material that petitioner has suffered any loss or damages due to retention of the silver bars by the Customs authority which ultimately was found to be returnable on finding of facts. In the absence of any such claim to damages no relief can be granted. Even otherwise whether the petitioner suffered any loss so as to warrant gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
