TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the date on which the petitioner had applied to the Customs Authorities for releasing the gold as per the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT for short). [2] Brief facts are as under: On a prior information of possible movement of smuggled gold of foreign origin, the Customs Authorities kept a vigil on Assam-Agartala road in the evening hours of 12th March, 2004. The Customs Authorities intercepted one Babul Roy and found on his person, hidden 7 (seven) gold bars weighing 817.700 gm. The gold was seized and the carrier apprehended. Investigation under the Customs Act, 1962 was carried out. Statements of witnesses under Section 108 of the Customs Act were recorded. Estimated value of the gold at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and smuggled. 8. In view of the above observations, the Appeals filed by the Appellants are allowed with consequential reliefs, if any." [3] The department did not challenge the said order of the CESTAT before the High Court and the order thus became final. The petitioner thereupon applied to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs on 27.06.2016 and raised the refund claim of Rs. 22,48,675/-. This was on the basis that his appeal was allowed by the Tribunal. The order of confiscation passed by the competent authority as confirmed by the Appellate Authority was no longer valid. The gold seized did not bear any markings. Return of the gold therefore may not be feasible. According to his calculation, going by the market rate of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....natural justice, PH has been given to the claimant Sh. Swadesh Ch. Paul during P.H. reiterated his earlier submissions. The Superintendent (A&R), O/o the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), NER, Shillong vide letter dtd. 16.06.2016 intimated that department is not appealing against the said Hon'ble CESTAT order. 2.2 On scrutiny of documents submitted by the claimant and records of the case. I am of the considered view that claimant Shri Swadesh Ch. Paul is eligible for refund of sale proceed of the seized 817.700 gm of gold amounting Rs. 8,07,033/- (Rupees eight lakh seven thousand thirty three) only. 2.3. Keeping the above facts in view I passed the following Order. ORDER 3.1. I do hereby sanction refund of Rs. 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7] In the present case, as noted, the order of confiscation of seized gold bars passed by the competent authority as confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner was reversed by the CESTAT. However as per the department, the gold bars were already deposited with the Central Government Mint along with other quantity of gold seized and which had vested in the Government upon the confiscation orders becoming final. This happened on 20th November, 2007. Through such transfer, the Customs Department had realized the sum of Rs. 8,07,033/- which it offered to refund to the petitioner when the final judgment of the Tribunal was delivered. According to the Customs Department, when the gold was disposed of, the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner were reversed by the Tribunal, the petitioner had to be restored to the original position, as closely as possible. The action of the department to offer to the petitioner the value of the gold as on 20th November, 2007 without any further interest nearly 9 (nine) years later, cannot be approved. The petitioner therefore, must receive the said principal sum of Rs. 8,07,033/- with interest. We do not think that this amount represents a deposit made by the petitioner which upon it's refund in terms of Section 129 EE of the Customs Act, would invite interest at the statutory rates. Here is the case where the departmental action of confiscation of seized goods came to be set aside by the CESTAT but by the time the Tribunal passed such a....