2006 (1) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. [Order]. - Brief facts of the case are as follows : In this case the appellants have filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) aggrieved with the order of the Lower Authority wherein he confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,32,468.00 (Rupees One Lac Thirty Two Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Eight) under Section 72 of the Customs Act. He adjusted the amount of Rs. 61,000.00 (Rupees Sixty One Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 61 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Heard Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant for the appellant. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeal) has wrongly rejected their appeal. He has not considered at all their submissions that the appellants are not liable to pay the duty on the goods which are auctioned by the Department. He also submits that interest is also not chargeable to them under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6-10-05 of the Joint Commissioner, Customs, Bangalore. 3. I have heard both the sides. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) order is vague. When he has set aside the order of the Lower Authority then under what provision the appellant have to pay the balance amount of Rs. 71,468.00 (Rupees Seventy One Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Eight). It has not been clarified under what provision and th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oods were sold on auction to M/s. Mahendra Computers and Electronics, Bangalore, the highest bidder. Neither side could confirm whether the goods were auctioned before/after the order dated 10-2-2000 was passed. I find that the order in original has been passed on a later date before the tender notice has been called by the Department. This is also a fact that the appellant has not been informed ....