By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 22, 2014: WE had reported the final order - (2011-TIOL-89-CESTAT-MUM) in this case thus -

Department's contention that since the appellant has not claimed ownership of the gold the same cannot be redeemed to him is not sustainable as section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 also mentions that option for redemption has to be given to the person from whose possession goods have been seized - since gold has been sold by the Department during pendency of proceedings, question of paying duty in respect of sale proceeds does not arise - case is remitted to the Commissioner for limited purpose of quantification of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 125 of CA, 1962 - department directed to return the sale proceeds after deducting therefrom, the penalty and redemption fine as quantified: CESTAT.

This was more than three years ago.

Incidentally, the Revenue had, against this order filed an application for Rectification of Mistake in the order and the same was rejected by the Bench in December, 2011.

Even though more than two years have lapsed, the customs authorities did not comply with the directions of the Tribunal given in order dated 28/10/2010 and, therefore, the appellant is before the Bench with a Miscellaneous application seeking implementation of the order.

The Revenue representative submitted that against the order dated 28/10/2010 of the Bench, the department had filed an appeal before the Bombay High Court and the same is pending. It is further submitted that the department will now try to expedite the hearing of the appeal and time may be given to the department for complying with the directions of the Tribunal.

The appellant was not represented.

The Bench observed -

"5. After going through the records and considering the submissions made by the learned Addl. Commissioner (AR), we find that even though the Tribunal passed the order as early as 28/10/2010 the department has approached the hon'ble High Court of Bombay only in August 2012 i.e. almost after a gap of two years. The appeal is yet to be admitted and the current status is pre-admission. Even after the filing of the appeal, 1½ years have passed and the department has not initiated any action either to get the order of the Tribunal stayed or the matter decided in their favour. This shows complete inertia on the part of the department in pursuing the matter to its logical conclusion."

6. Therefore, we direct the department to comply with the order dated 28/10/2010 within a period of one month from today or get direction from the hon'ble High Court against the order of this Tribunal. If no order is received in favour of the Revenue from the hon'ble High Court, the direction of the Tribunal should be complied in toto and action taken accordingly. The miscellaneous application is disposed of in the above manner."

In passing: The natural law of inertia: Matter will remain at rest or continue in uniform motion in the same straight line unless acted upon by some external force - W. Clement Stone.

(See 2014-TIOL-277-CESTAT-MUM)