AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (11) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the statutory duty. 2. Case set out in the petition is that on 19-4-2006, goods of MRP value of Rs. 50.55 lacs, belonging to the petitioner, stored in its godowns at Ahmedabad, were seized on the allegation that the same had been clandestinely removed by the manufacturer/seller, namely - Grover Sales : Corporation without payment of excise duty due. Seizure was effected under Section 110 of the Customs Act, which has been made applicable to the 1944 Act by virtue of a notification issued under Section 12 thereof. The manufacturer/seller made a deposit of the duty involved on 20-4-2006. 3. Section 110(1A) of the 1962 Act provides that in certain situations, including where the goods are perishable, the goods have to be disposed of af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the goods may be sold, being perishable in nature, as required under the law. This was followed by letters dated 20-7-2006, Annexure P.4 and letter dated 14-8-2006, Annexure P.5. 6. This writ petition was filed on 10-10-2006 with the grievance that the goods having neither been released nor auctioned lost the value and thus the petitioner suffered loss of value of goods on account of failure of the respondents to follow the statutory duty and this entitles the petitioner to payment of an amount equal to the value of the goods or credit thereof, to be set of against the demand of duty, if any, raised against the petitioner. 7. In the reply filed, the stand taken on behalf of the respondents is that an amount of Rs. 1.53 crores was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e out that the State or its officers had taken due care and caution to protect the property, the Magistrate may, in an appropriate case, where the ends of justice so require, order payment of the value of the property. 11. In Shilp Impex v. Union of India, 2001 (128) E.L.T. 54 (Del.), a Division Bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Hon'ble the Chief Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Justice D.K. Jain, as their lordships then were, while observing that the case in hand was a classic example of how the simple matters get complicated by authorities where the Customs officials were largely responsible for the confusion and impasse created, held as under :- "5. Though the order is appealable yet in view of the peculiar circumstances; w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 3,80,000/-Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has already been paid. Therefore, the Customs Authority shall return to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 2,64,997/- (i.e the difference between Rs. 6,44,997/- and Rs. 3,80,000/-). The amount shall be remitted to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today." 12. The SLP against the above judgment was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). 13. A Division Bench of this Court in Patiala Castings Private Limited v. Union of India, 2003 (156) E.L.T. 458 (P&H), while passing strictures against the revenue officers, observed as under :- "35. The sequence of events as noticed above clearly shows that the petitioner was not at fault at any stage. There was n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bstantial amount of money had to be paid by the petitioner to the Bank on account of interest etc. 36. It is clear that the petitioner has been unduly harassed. If the petitioner had imported goods different from those as described in the import documents, it may have been possible for the respondents to justify the demand for 'duty' or even demurrage etc. However, in the present case, it is clear that the goods were scrap. These were not serviceable pipes. Thus, the department itself is responsible for the charges on account of the delay in release of 'containers' and demurrage on account of the delay in the release of goods. The petitioner is not responsible in any manner whatsoever. Thus, the petitioner shall be entitled to the reimbu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that, from the approved valuer, the goods were got examined and a report dated 2-11-2006 has been submitted to the effect that the value of the goods was now nil. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that the adjudication having not been completed and the petitioner having not availed of the order of provisional release, respondents were not responsible for loss of value of goods as they were under no obligation to auction the same. It has also been pointed out that after receipt of letter dated 14-8-2006, on 17-8-2006 the matter has been taken up for disposal of the goods and the process was taking some time as the goods are in the custody o....