Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Oriental Trimex Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No.50601 of 2019 (SM)
Date of Judgement/Order : 18/05/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Oriental Trimex Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Delhi)

The case of Oriental Trimex Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) was heard by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Delhi. The issue in the appeals was whether the imported rough marble blocks were liable to confiscation and whether penalty was rightly imposed. The CESTAT allowed the appeals and held that the appellant was entitled to the sale proceeds of the auctioned goods, reduced only by the amount of penalty. The CESTAT further ruled that the appellant was entitled to interest on the auction sale proceeds from the date of receipt of the amount by the Customs Department until the date of disbursal. This article provides an analysis of the case and its implications.

Analysis: The appellant imported rough marble blocks and failed to clear the goods from the Customs due to financial difficulties. The Customs Department issued a show cause notice proposing to confiscate the goods and impose a penalty. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the goods and imposed a redemption fine under Section 112 of the Customs Act.

The appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the order-in-original. The appellant approached the CESTAT, arguing that the goods were not available for redemption and that the auctioning of the goods during the pendency of the appeal was contrary to law. The appellant also contended that the redemption fine could not be adjusted against the sale proceeds.

The CESTAT referred to a similar case where the appellant had appealed before the Delhi High Court. The High Court observed that the action of the Revenue to auction/sell the goods during the pendency of the appeal was contrary to law. The High Court further concluded that the appellant was entitled to the sale proceeds, reduced only by the amount of penalty, and that no adjustment of the redemption fine could be made since the goods were not available for redemption.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031