1998 (9) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the goods are liable to be confiscated under Sections 111(d) of the Act?

Held that:- The submission of Shri Choudhary is that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Collector that there is misdeclaration of value was based on no evidence. We find merit in the aforesaid contention of Shri Choudhary.

Also the Collector had also ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(p) of the Act for the reason that there was violation of the provisions of Section 11C of the Act, the Tribunal, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Collector, has not dealt with the part of the order of the Collector finds support from the order of the Tribunal because the Tribunal while setting aside the order passed by the Collector has not dealt with the question whether the goods were liable to be confiscated under Section 111(p) on account of contravention of the requirement of Section 11C of the Act. Thus matter is required to be remitted to the Tribunal for consideration of the question whether the goods are liable to be confiscated under Sections 111(m) on the ground of misdeclaration of the value of bobbins and under Section 111(p) on the ground of contravention of the provisions of Section 11C of the Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed by way of remand.