2017 (11) TMI 1171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the respondent ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the compensation has been denied to the appellant on the premises that goods detained and were in the custody of the appellant, the appellant was required to take care of the said goods. 2.  The brief facts of the case are that vide order dated 29.08.2000, demand of duty was confirmed along with inte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... be released but no action was taken and the appellant was forced to make another payment of 34,00,000/-. On 26.03.2008, the Hon'ble Apex Court remanded the matter to this Tribunal for fresh adjudication and on 08.09.2009, this Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the appellant and hold that no demand is sustainable against the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant wrote various letters to the d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....61/- has been seized and seized goods became the property of the Revenue but the said goods have been given on superdginama to the appellant for safe custody. It is the fact on record that the goods were in safe custody of the appellant and Revenue could claim those goods any time. It is further submitted that immediately after seizure of the goods, the appellant explained the reasons and sought r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of the appellant. 4.  On the other hand, the Ld. AR opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that the appellant has given undertaking that they will keep the goods in safe custody which means that they was required to keep safe of the said goods and will not disposal of the said goods, therefore, it was the duty of the appellant to keep the goods in good condition which they....