TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 876
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....export of consignment of man-made fiber jeans to UAE. On 23.11.2010, a notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.2 to show cause as to why confiscation of goods valued at Rs.2,97,66,478/- under Section 113 of the Customs Act and penalty under Section 114 as well as personal penalty under Section 114 (iii) of the Act be not imposed. A reply was furnished. Considering the same, the final order was passed on 30.4.2011 directing confiscation of goods. Since the goods were already released provisionally on execution of bond along with a Bank Guarantee, a redemption fine of Rs.20 Lakhs was imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act. A penalty of Rs.10 Lakhs was imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act. Thereafter, an amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are not tenable in law. Hence, he pleads that the petition be allowed by directing the respondents to release the said amount along with the interest at 24% per annum. The respondents have filed their reply. They have raised a preliminary objection that under sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the Customs Act no refund can be made except as provided in sub-section (2). Since in the present case the order in original was set aside by the CESTAT, the petitioner's claim for refund cannot be considered. Various grounds have been raised by the respondents on merits as to deny the claim of the petitioner. Hence, it is pleaded that the petition be dismissed. Heard learned counsels. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne of that has happened. Therefore, it would appear that such a contention has been raised not only to protract the litigation but to deny the petitioner his legal entitlement. After litigating in a court of law when orders are passed in favour of the petitioner, they are required to be complied with in letter and spirit. Untenable grounds seeking to question the entitlement of the petitioner, does not lie with the respondents. In case the submissions of the respondents were to be accepted, the same would result in overriding the orders passed by the CESTAT. The same is unacceptable. We are constrained to observe that in the facts of the present case, the respondents were not justified in withholding the said payments. In view of the delib....