TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 37
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5-CUS/APPL/LKO/2019 dated 21/01/2019 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs, GST & Central Excise, Lucknow. Through the said Miscellaneous Application appellant has brought to the notice to this Tribunal that the goods impugned in the present case i.e. 1235 grams of gold valued at Rs. 36,55,600/- at the time of seizure dated 10/07/2017 were sold by Revenue to State Bank of India and the said disposal of gold was informed to the appellant on 08/07/2019 and in respect of such disposal of gold during the period allowed by law to the appellant to file appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant filed Writ Petition No.21783 (M/B) of 2019 before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Lucknow Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court thr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....old and imposition of penalty on the appellant. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through Order-in-Original dated 13/09/2018. The Original Authority ordered absolute confiscation of 1235 grams of gold valued at Rs. 36,55,600/- under Section 111 Customs Act of 1962 and imposed penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs under Section 112 (b) and Rs. 25,000/- under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said order appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) through impugned Order-in-Appeal has set aside absolute confiscation and allowed redemption of said quantity of gold on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 7.50 lakhs and set aside penalty imposed under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. Agg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed redemption of gold on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 7.50 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs and they have challenged both imposition of penalty and imposition of redemption fine through this appeal and that the gold is not available for redemption therefore the question of payment of redemption fine and duty has become redundant. He has relied on ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilps Impex vs. Union of India reported as 2002 (140) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). He has submitted that the said decision was dated 18/01/2002 and the said decision was an interim order further finalized on 05/04/2002 and 12/04/2002 in the said SLP (Civil) 6558/2001. He further stated that the law is lai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be returned to the appellant after deducting redemption fine and penalty. 6. At this stage learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilps Impex supra was relied on and followed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. vs. Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi reported as 2002 (143) E.L.T. 0060 (Del.). He has submitted that in Para-11 of the ruling by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. supra it was directed to Revenue to refund the amount of Rs. 26,28,904/- declared as a value of the confiscated goods to the petitioner and Revenue was also directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of unauthorize....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds had disappeared they were not returned. It is for this reason that the petitioner has become entitled to get back what he had paid and, in addition thereto the value of the goods. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, the learned Additional Solicitor General states that some money has already been paid to the petitioner-firm. The balance amount will be paid within a period of four weeks." The matter was further heard by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05/04/2002. On 05/04/2002 Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered as follows:- "As per the order dated 18.01.2002 passed by this Court, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, the learned Addl. Solicitor General appearing for the respondents has handed over three cheques totaling to Rs. 4,35,000/- to the learned counsel appearing for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view of the matter, appropriate action is required to be taken for filing false affidavits. We, further, depricate the insistence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though it was known to him that the entire amount was received by the petitioner, that the petitioner had not received the same. This conduct is not accepted from an advocate. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner tenders apology for the same, hence we do not propose to take any further action. Petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs and deposit the same within one month from today with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. The petition stands disposed of accordingly." 8. On perusal of aforesaid ruling by Hon'ble Supreme Court ....