JAYA BHARTA CREDIT LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. In the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs held that Shri Lalit Kumar N. Rajdeo is the owner of the vehicle under consideration.

(2.) The contention of the appellants is that they are the owner of the vehicle, which was confiscated by the Customs authorities and they gave the vehicle to Sh. Lalit Kumar N. Rajdeo on hire purchase basis. The contention of the appellants is also that there is evidence on record that Shri Lalit Kumar N. Rajdeo sold the vehicle to one Shri Aziz -dur -Rehman. Their contention is that the Commissioner wrongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab reported in 2000 (121) E.L.T. 9 (S.C). The contention of the appellants is that in the case of Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the company was also challenging the order of confiscation and in that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the registered owner of the vehicle, in whose name the vehicle stands registered under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, is the owner of the confiscated vehicle. The contention of the appellants is that in the present proceedings they are not challenging the order of confiscation, but they are only claiming the vehicle, which was now sold by the Customs authorities and they are entitled for sale proceeds on the ground that they purchased the vehicle from the dealer, who gave the same to Shri Lalit Kumar N. Rajdeo on hire purchase agreement and they are also not aware of further sale by Sh. Lalit Kumar N. Rajdeo. Their submission is that as per hire purchase agreement, Sh. Lalit Kumar N. Rajdeo was not entitled to sell the vehicle.

(3.) In the present case, the appellants are claiming the ownership of the vehicle, which was confiscated by the Customs authorities, on the ground that the vehicle was given to Sh. Lalit Kumar N. Rajdeo on hire purchase agreement. Their contention is also that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had specifically gone into the question whether on account of hire purchase agreement, the appellants can be held to be the owner of the vehicle under the provisions of Section 60(3) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. While deciding this issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in absence of the definition of 'owner' in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, it would be reasonable to construe the expression 'owner' must be held to be the registered owner of the vehicle, in whose name the vehicle stands registered under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act.