TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 486
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner carried the said order before the appellate authority who affirms the said order. subsequently, the order was further carried to the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) and the order of the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority was quashed and set aside. Between the period from the date of an order of the appellate tribunal and filing of an appeal before the CESTAT, the authorities sold the seized goods at a price of Rs. 2,28,010/- although the competent officer at the time of seizure valued the said goods at Rs.7,75,792/-. The department challenged the order passed by CESTAT before this Court. The writ petition was initially admitted but thereafter no step was taken by the respondent authorities as a consequence whereof the appeal stood dismissed for default. Subsequently, the respondent authorities forwarded a cheque for a sum of Rs.2,28,010/- being the value of the goods sold by the authorities which was accepted without prejudice by the petitioner. In this writ petition the petitioner says that the authorities are required to pay the value of the goods assessed at the time of seizure. The learned advocate for the petitioner furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfiscated goods. The core issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to receive the value of the goods assessed at the time of the seizure or the value which the respondent authorities received from the sale. In this regard the reference can be made to the judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of Silp Impex (supra) wherein it is held that the importer is entitled to receive the value of the goods fixed by the department and not what the customs authorities received upon sale of the said goods. The aforesaid proposition is reiterated in the case of Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. (supra) in these words ;- "7. Therefore, according to the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner after confiscation, the goods became the property of the Central Government. During the pendency of the petitioner's appeal, without any permission of the court, the confiscated goods were auctioned in a clandestine manner by the respondents. The respondents are obviously under an obligation to compensate the petitioner for the grave loss which has been caused to him. The goods were evaluated by the petitioner at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mported the goods at all. It would be reasonable to presume that an importer would have imported the goods of the value of Rs. 33.04 lakhs if its value in Indian market at the relevant time was more than CIS value of the goods plus the duty payable thereon (Rs. 33.04 lakhs + 47.07 lakhs = Rs. 80.11 lakhs) It is also not the stand of the respondent that such goods were available in the Indian market at that time at a lesser price. Therefore it is now the obligation of the respondent to return at least Rs. 80.11 lakhs - 47.07 lakhs the amount of duty payable thereon. As the applicant has been deprived of the use of the goods worth Rs. 33.04 lakhs the respondent is under a legal obligation now to refund that amount to the applicant. The respondent cannot now be permitted to take the advantage of his own wrong and contend that the value of the goods should be determined only at Rs. 48.50 lakhs inclusive of its value and the amount of duty payable thereon because they could be sold at that price only. We also cannot accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that if the applicant has suffered any loss as a result of the wrongful act of the respondent then he should ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d amount with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date of unauthorised auction of the confiscated goods, i.e., 21-5-1998." By relying upon the judgement of the Shilps Impex (supra), the Punjab & Harianna High Court in the case of Harinder Singh (supra) accepted and applied the ration and directed the authorities to pay the value of the goods assessed at the time of seizure. It appears from the judgment rendered by the Punjab & Haryanna High Court in the case of Harinder Singh (supra) that the judgement rendered in Shilps Impes of Delhi High Court tested before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the said order which is aptly quoted as under ;- "6. Sections 23(2) and 150 of the Act on which great emphasis is laid by the counsel for the respondent read as under :- Section 23. Remission of duty on lost, destroyed or abandoned goods. (1).................... (2) The owner of any imported goods may, at any time before an order for clearance of goods for home consum....