TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 2017
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvestigation, on 15.09.2022, Department officers conducted search in appellant's office premises and seized a few documents pertaining to past imports vide seizure memo dated 15.09.2022. On the same day, a Restraint Order was issued for (1) Imported Face Veneer of 24,84,378.33 SQM valued at Rs.2,04,27,751/-, (2) Conveyor Belt valued at Rs.6,129/-, (3) Ply woods 68.47 SQM valued at Rs.10,324/-, (4) 14 nos. Imported Machines valued at Rs.76,36,971/- and 311 nos. Spare Parts valued at Rs. 11,97,153/- which comes to a total value of Rs.2,92,78,328/- and the godown was sealed by the officer of the Respondent. Subsequently, appellant was forced to remit an amount of Rs.78,00,000/- (Rs.48,00,000/- on 20.09.2022 and Rs.30,00,000/- on 29.09.2022....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....subject to any condition as deemed fit and proper by this Tribunal. 3. Learned AR for Revenue submits that as per the impugned order, Adjudication authority has already given an option for redemption of goods on payment of customs duty, redemption fine and penalty. Facts being so, the present petition seeking interim release of the goods is strongly opposed. 4. Heard both sides. We find that the goods were seized on 15.09.2022 and appellant had paid substantial amount for release of the same on the very same day. However only as per the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, raw material were released in 2023. Imported Machines and Spare Parts are lying without any maintenance and in the absence of any reasonable cause for detenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....released, unconditionally. Appeal filed by the Revenue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3489/2024 and vide order dated 11.09.2025, while dismissing Revenue's appeal, their Lordships held as under:- 16. We take notice of the fact that before the Delhi High Court reliance was sought to be placed by the revenue on one decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Jayant Hansraj Shah v. Union of India, reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 339 (Bom.). In the said decision, the Bombay High Court took the view that if there is a provisional release of the seized goods, in exercise of powers under Section 110A of the Act, 1962, then, in such circumstances, the period during which the seized goods remains provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the operation of the mandatory provision of Section 110(2). 19. In the case in hand, indisputably the car was seized under sub-section (1) and furthermore no notice in respect of the goods seized was given under clause (a) of section 124 of the said Act within six months of the seizure. The consequence, therefore, in such a case is that the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. The first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 110 of the said Act, however, provides that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the six months' period by a period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods were....