Page 58 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

A96 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

2014 was nothing but continuation of said previous application. Further
Section 27(1B) of Customs Act, 1962 prescribes limitation of one year applicable
to person claiming refund and clause (c) thereof gives extended time to assessee
and not to Department. Since, refund claim filed much prior to date of final as-
sessment of duty and refunded within three months although assessment was
finalized later, Department was liable to pay interest on sanctioned amount for
delayed period.
REPRESENTED BY : Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Advocate, for the Appellant.

(1) Confiscation and penalty imposed on imported aircraft
engine kept in Customs warehouse, whether valid?
(2) Seizure of imported goods by Customs Authorities for
recovery of Service Tax arrear at the request of Ser-
vice Tax Department, whether can be termed as a sei-
zure under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962?
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari on 20-1-2020 admitted the Civil Appeal
No. 10125 of 2018 filed by Commissioner of Customs against the CESTAT Final
Order No. C/A/54324/2017-CU(DB), dated 23-6-2017 as reported in 2017 (358)
E.L.T. 1049 (Tri - Del.) (International Lease Finance Corporation v. Commissioner).
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that since aircraft
engine imported claiming exemption under a particular notification had never
left Customs warehouse nor it was cleared for home consumption, confiscation
thereof was not sustainable particularly when there was no violation of condition
of such exemption notification.
It was also held that the detention of imported goods ordered by the
Customs Authorities pursuant to request of the Service Tax Department for re-
covery of the confirmed arrears of Service Tax against the importers, cannot be
taken as seizure in terms of Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. Aman Lekhi, ASG, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR,
Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Mr. Dharmen-
dra Gupta and Mr. Chiranjeev Chauhan, Advocates, for
the Appellant.
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, AOR, Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Ms.
Arpita Sharma, Mr. Adhish Rajvanshi and Ms. Rashi
Maheshwari, Advocates, for the Respondent.

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  58