TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 983
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....565 grams valued at the time of seizure as Rs. 7,35,247.81. The case was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of customs and vide Order-in-Original dated 11.1.1994 directed absolute confiscation of the goods and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on Sri Rajaram Johra and Rs. 2,000/- each on Shri Rajendra Kumar Varma and Gopichand under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. They filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 20.4.2000 rejected the appeal as time-barred. The appellant then filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1507/2000 dated 31.10.2000 dismissed the stay application and appeal as not maintainable confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant then file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le High Court and vide judgment in CMA No. 2683 of 2016 dated 19.9.2018, the Hon'ble High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision on the appellant's appeal to test as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was right in fixing the market value of the gold on the date when he passed the order or whether the market value prevailing on the date of seizure should be taken into consideration. The remand is restricted to this aspect and the same shall be decided by the Tribunal in accordance with law. 4. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri S. Ramesh Kumar appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that at the time of seizure, the value of the gold was noted by the department to be Rs. 7,35,247.81 only. The Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the order by the Commissioner (Appeals). The goods are in the custody or ownership of the Government of India after confiscation. Therefore, while giving the option to redeem the market value prevailing at the time of giving such option should be taken into consideration. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly fixed the redemption fine by arriving at the market value of the goods at the time of passing the order. The impugned order does not call for any interference. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The Hon'ble High Court has remanded the matter for the limited purpose of considering what would be the relevant date for arriving at the market value of goods so as to determine the redemption fine that has to be paid by the appellant. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has interfered with the market value of the goods so as to enhance the same taking into consideration the prevailing rate of gold as on 29.4.2009 i.e. the date of passing the impugned order. The matter has been in litigation of a long period. As per proviso to sub-section (1)of Section 125, the redemption fine is to be fixed on the basis of the market value. The said provision does not speak about the relevant period / date for arriving the market value. Be that as it may, time consumed in litigation cannot be a factor for deciding the redemption fine that has to be paid by the assessee. Thus, in my view the date of seizure would be the basis for arriving the market value of the goods and for....