TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (7) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nment and clear the goods for home consumption. The petitioners then paid the duty and fine and cleared the goods. 2. As against this order the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Board by its order dated July 5, 1982 reversed the decision given by the Collector and held that the petitioners' contentions were fully valid and the appeal was allowed. However, when this order was passed, no order to refund the penalty amount paid by the petitioners was passed. 3. It appears that against this order the Collector of Customs had preferred an appeal to the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal but the Appellate Tribunal by its order dated January 12, 1984 rejected the said appeal on the gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioners were not banned at all and that, therefore there could have been no action to confiscate the same under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. As regards the question of issue of certificate relating to the detention, in my view, the department is bound to issue such a certificate. The goods were detained at the instance of the Customs department and not on account of any fault on the part of the petitioners. In this connection Mr. Talyarkhan has drawn my attention to a Full Bench judgment of Madras High Court in the case of National Industries v. Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, reported in 1980 E.L.T. 128 (Mad.). The Madras High Court after considering all the relevant rules and also the rules of the Port Trus....