BALIA, J. - (1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THROUGH this writ petition, the petitioner seeks mandamous against the respondents to quash the communication dated 2. 6. 2005 (Annexure 16) and to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 18 per cent on the money equivalent to the value of 85 bars of silver from 14. 8. 1997 till 18. 1. 2005. The market value of silver bars weighing 2910. 550 Kgs as on 14. 8. 1997 is stated to be Rs. 2,13,77,990/- at the rate of Rs. 7345/- per kg. Facts of this case are that 85 bars of silver were seized from the father of the petitioner in the search conducted at his premises on 3. 8. 65 and 8. 8. 65 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the same were deposited in Treasury at Chittorgarh. Proceedings under the Treasure and Trove Act, 1878 and the Customs Act followed successively. The father of the petitioner claimed that he had acquired 85 silver bars more than 30 to 35 years before seizure lawfully and that he had not contravened any of the provisions of the Customs Act so as to suffer confiscation of said silver bars. He had also contested the proceedings under Treasure and Trove Act. The proceedings under the Treasure and Trove Act were held to be not sustainable by this Court in D. B. C. Writ No. 705/76 and 838/76 on 3. 11. 92 SLP against which was also dismissed. The proceedings under Customs Act finally terminated in favour of the petitioner. The Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 14. 8. 97 relying on the finding reached under the proceedings of Treasure and Trove Act and Wealth Tax Act concluded that the silver bars in question had been acquired by the father of the petitioner prior to imposition of the restriction vide Notification issued in the year 1948 on import of silver. Consequently, he was entitled to return of silver on confiscation order was found unsustanable. The order of CEGAT was passed on 14. 8. 97 while holding in favour of the petitioner CEGAT directed the consequential relief to the present petitioner in accordance with law. Soon after the order of the CEGAT the petitioner applied for return of said silver bars vide letter dated 12. 9. 97.
(3.) HOWEVER, Revenue had preferred an application under Section 130 of the Customs Act for making reference to this Court about the finding reached by the Tribunal for challenging the same. The Reference Application was rejected on 17. 1. 98, which led to filing an application under Section 130 of the Customs Act 1962 before this Court which was registered as Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Gunwant Lal D. B. Tax Reference Application No. 21/2003. Due to persuit of said proceedings the silver bars had not been returned to the petitioner. Prior to that the petitioner has preferred a writ petition bearing D. B. C. Writ Petition No. 136/99 seeking a mandamous for return of silver in pursuance of the directions contained in order of CEGAT. Since both the matters were interconnected, they were heard in succession. On 30th October 2003 this Court decided the reference application by holding that the findings recorded by the Tribunal were findings of facts and no question of law arose out of the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, application was dismissed. ;