COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND ORS. versus VASANT MAGALAN CHOKSHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 518 · Decided: 07-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND ORS. 
v. 
V ASANT MA GALAN CHOKSHI AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 7, 2006 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Customs Act; Ss. 11 l(d) and 112(a): 
Seizure of gold bars by Revenue authorities-Show Cause Notice-
C Commissioner directing confiscation of the gold bars-Challenge to-Tribunal 
remanding the matter for de novo adjudication by the Commissioner-,-
Commissioner directed confiscation of 8 gold bars only as 70 out of 78 gold 
bars were received from genuine sources-Appeals and cross-appeals-
Tribunal set aside order of confiscation as there was no evidence of illegal 
D import of the gold bars in question-Challenge to-High Court directing 
release of all the gold bars so confiscated by Revenue-In view of the order 
of High Court, Tribunal dismissed the pending appeals of Revenue-On 
appeal, Held: Revenue failed to point out to the Tribunal about pendency of 
appeals preferred by them at appropriate time-Hence, setting aside orders 
of the Courts below would amount to giving premium to the negligence of 
E the Revenue, especially, when the Revenue and the Courts below, all held in 
favour of noticees. 
Customs Authorities conducted raid and seized 78 bars of gold from 
respondents as imported clandestinely. Later, Commissioner of Customs 
ordered confiscation of the seized gold bars. The order was challenged before 
F the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation passed by the 
Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for de novo 
adjudication. The Commissioner held that out of the 78 gold bars, 70 bars 
had been received from genuine sources, but as far as the remaining 8 bars 
of gold were concerned, the legality of their import had not been properly 
G explained. It directed confiscation of 8 gold bars only. Appeals and cross-
appeals were filed by the parties. 
H 
In the appeals filed by the noticees, the Customs, Excise and Service 
Tax Appellate Tribunal (CEST AT) set aside the order of confiscation on the 
518 
COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS v. VASANT MAGALAN CHOKSHI 
519 
ground that the gold bars in question did not bear any foreign mark and that A 
there was no evidence that the same had been illegally imported. The order 
was challenged by the Revenue. The noticees also filed a Writ Petition before 
the High Court praying for release of the gold bars. The High Court directed 
to release all the gold bars. After the directions of the High Court for release 
of the gold bars, the appeals filed by the Revenue came up for final hearing 
and disposal before the Tribunal. Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the B 
Revenue. Hence the present special leave petitions. 
Revenue contended that the Tribunal had committed a grave error in 
disposing of the appeals filed by the noticees without disposing of the appeals 
filed by them at the same time; that the appeals filed by them had been rendered C 
infructuous since the same had not been taken up along with the appeals 
preferred by the noticees; that the said fact had been brought to the notice of 
1 
the High Court but the High Court had held that it was no longer possible to 
entertain such a plea since the facts about pendency of the appeals had not 
been brought to the notice of the Tribunal when the appeals filed by the noticees 
were disposed of; and that in the interest of justice the orders passed by the D 
Tribunal in appeals preferred by the noticees were required to be set aside; 
and that the Tribunal should be directed to dispose of all the appeals by taking 
them together. 
Respondents submitted that since the petitioner had failed in its duty in E 
pointing out the fact that the Revenue's appeal was pending when the Tribunal 
took the assessee's appeal for hearing, it was no longer open to the petitioner 
to turn round and to point a finger at the Tribunal in these circumstances. 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
HELD: Revenue had failed to point out to the Tribunal that the appeals Jr 
preferred by them were also pending. Under the circumstances, setting aside 
the decision of the Tribunal, as also of the High Court, in order to 
accommodate the Revenue would unsettle matters which have already been 
settled and would amount to giving premium to the negligence of the Revenue 
especially when the Commissioner of Customs, CESTAT and the High Court 
had all held in favour of the n~ticees and have directed return of all the 78 G 
bars (}f gold to them. More than 8 years have passed since 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.