TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) of the Customs Act. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the charges levelled in the show cause notice and absolutely confiscated the gold seized under panchnamadtd. 13.11.2016 from Skoda Car and office of the PGM Joyeria, Ahmedabad. The Appellants challenged the adjudication order before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide final order No. A/10561- 10568/2019 dtd. 25.03.2019 allowed the appeals of Appellants and quashed and set aside the confiscation of the seized goods with consequential relief. In terms of CESTAT order the Appellant requested for release of confiscated gold and return the amount deposited at the time of preferring the appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant received response from the department that the confiscated gold belongs to the Appellants was deposited in the I.G. Mint, Mumbai and the said Gold was disposed of through SBI Bullion at market price on 01.08.2018. The department provided the cheques to the Appellants. The Appellants requested the department to refund the differential value of gold that was calculated by comparing the value of the gold melted on 01.08.2018 and date on which cheque was given to the Appellants. The department rejected the req....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he following decisions:- • GirdharlalKalyandas Advani Vs. Union of India - 1992 (58) ELT 453 • Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2002(143)ELT 60 • Ashupati Nath Dhandania Vs. Union of India - 2014 SCC Online Cal 4557 3.2 He further submits that department ought not to have order for melting of gold in a case where the Appellants preferred the appeal within time limit before the Hon'ble CESTAT inter-alia praying to quash and set aside the order passed for confiscation of the gold seized by DRI. That the auction of the order for melting of gold was premature as the Customs Department did not wait for outcome of the Appeal filed before the Hon'ble CESTAT. 4. Per Contra the Shri. Dharmendra Kanjani, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue has argued that in the present case the Gold seized by the DRI was absolutely confiscated vide OIO No. AHM-CUSTM-000-COM-016-17-18 dated 09.03.2018. The Appellants had filed the Appeals before the Hon'ble Tribunal in June 2018. However, the Hon'ble bench had not passed any orders staying operations of the order passed by Adjudicating Auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uted Gold, through the SBI Bullion Branch. During the pendency of the appeal before the CESTAT, it would not be appropriate for the Department to dispose the disputed seized goods, especially when the Appellants had filed appeals challenging the impugned order before the Tribunal and department also aware about the filing of Appeals by the Appellant. Therefore, the Department has to necessarily await the decision of the Tribunal and abide by the direction that has been issued by the Tribunal. 7. We do not agree with the argument of Ld. Departmental representative that Hon'ble tribunal had not passed any orders staying operation of the order passed by the Adjudicating authority. In the disputed matter appeals were filed by the Appellant after compliance of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, therefore Appellant were not required to file any stay application for recovery of government dues during the pendency of Appeals. In this regard the circular dated 16th September, 2014 bearing No. 984/08/2014-CX, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Government of India. Clause-4 of the said circular is relevant. Clauses-4.1 to 4.3 of the said circular reads as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal confiscated goods could not have been auctioned without prior permission of the appellate court. 8. In the instant case, during the disputed period the matter was sub judice before the Tribunal, but the Department in a haste manner has disposed of the goods without seeking permission from the appellate court where the matter was sub judice. Thus, the Department has committed a serious mistake by disposing the disputed goods which was a subject matter of an appeal. 9. We also noticed that in the present matter department also not intimated the Appellants regarding the disposal of confiscated gold. The act of the department ex-part cannot be held as proper and legal. In the Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. 2002 (143) E.L.T. 60 (Del.) (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that it is a serious lapse on the part of the department when it auctioned confiscated goods without permission of the Tribunal during pendency of the appeal without even giving notice to the appellants. It was held that the department has to refund the declared value of the goods with interest per annum from the date of auction of the goods. 10. In the Spring RPG India Ltd.2002 (140) E.L.T. 73 (Del.) ....