Deputy Commissioner's Incompetence in Goods Seizure Decision Remanded for Procedural Adherence

Commissioner of Central Excise - Nashik Versus Rajmal Lakhichand Jewellers

Commissioner of Central Excise - Nashik Versus Rajmal Lakhichand Jewellers - TMI Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the competence of the Deputy Commissioner to decide on the release of seized goods, violation of principles of natural justice, and the refund of monetary proceeds of silver instead of returning the physical quantity.

Competence of Deputy Commissioner:
The appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the order of the commissioner appeal on the grounds that the Deputy Commissioner was not competent to decide on the release of goods. The appellant argued that the Deputy Commissioner's order was related to the release of money proceeds of silver directed by the High Court, not the confiscation or release of goods under Section 122. The Deputy Commissioner's decision was based on the High Court's directive, and the appellant was not given a show cause notice or a personal hearing. The Tribunal found that the Deputy Commissioner was not the competent authority to issue the order, as per Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeal) for further consideration.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the principles of natural justice were violated due to the non-issuance of a show cause notice and lack of a personal hearing. The appellant argued that in cases where the matter is not under dispute, a show cause notice is not necessary. However, the Tribunal noted that the Deputy Commissioner's decision was based on the High Court's directive and the matter had already been finalized. The Tribunal held that the Deputy Commissioner's action did not violate the principles of natural justice.

Refund of Monetary Proceeds:
Regarding the refund of monetary proceeds of silver instead of returning the physical quantity, the appellant cited departmental instructions and practices. The Tribunal considered various case laws and decisions related to the disbursement of sale proceeds of seized goods. The Tribunal found that the refund claims under Section 27 of the Customs Act allow for refund of amounts due to the claimant for any reason, including the sale of seized/confiscated goods. The Deputy Commissioner's decision to refund the amount was deemed incorrect as he was not the competent authority to issue such an order. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeal) for further consideration, including the payment of interest on the refunded amount.