https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769430 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, holding that the Customs Department's encashment and deposit of seized traveller's cheques into their account was arbitrary. The tribunal found no justification for encashing the non-perishable dollar-denominated cheques instead of keeping them in interest-bearing accounts or allowing provisional release under Section 110-A. Following precedent from Matta Paints case, the tribunal ruled that retaining interest constituted unjust enrichment by the department and deprivation of the appellant's property rights. The appellant was awarded interest on the deposited amount from deposit date, minus redemption fines and penalties, payable within two months. en-us Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Apr 2025 08:53:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769430 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, holding that the Customs Department's encashment and deposit of seized traveller's cheques into their account was arbitrary. The tribunal found no justification for encashing the non-perishable dollar-denominated cheques instead of keeping them in interest-bearing accounts or allowing provisional release under Section 110-A. Following precedent from Matta Paints case, the tribunal ruled that retaining interest constituted unjust enrichment by the department and deprivation of the appellant's property rights. The appellant was awarded interest on the deposited amount from deposit date, minus redemption fines and penalties, payable within two months. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769430