Try our new portal www.taxtmi.com for a better experience!

Home

Case Laws

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2008 2008 (9) This

Law
Court
Citation	- -
Landmark
Order by

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 301 to 320 of 941 Records

2008 (9) TMI 744

Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs - Document for availing credit - Board’s Circular No. 766/82/2003-CX., dated 15-12-2003 - Held that: - when the transactions of the user of the inputs were genuine and the bonafide nature of the same is not disputed, action should not be taken to recover Cenvat credit availed by such manufacturers on the ground that the supplier of the inputs had failed to discharge its monthly duty liability - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
2008 (9) TMI 743

Issues:
1. Whether Modvat credit on Viscose Staple Fibre used in the manufacture of Viscose Blended Cotton Yarn could be denied to the respondents for a specific period.

Analysis:

1. The appeal dealt with the question of denying Modvat credit on Viscose Staple Fibre used in manufacturing Viscose Blended Cotton Yarn during a particular period. The issue was whether the intermediate product, carded/combed cotton, was specified as a final product for input duty credit during that period. The Revenue argued that since carded/combed cotton was not specified as a final product under Rule 57A before 21-10-94, anything used in its manufacture was not a Modvatable input. On the contrary, the respondents contended that carded/combed cotton was not an excisable good, and therefore, Viscose Staple Fibre used in the manufacture of the final product should be considered a Modvatable input even before 21-10-94.

2. Reference was made to the case of Mettur Spinning Mills, where Polyester Staple Fibre used in manufacturing Polyester Cotton Blended Yarn was considered a Modvatable input for the final product. It was established that no duty was leviable on carded/combed cotton, the intermediate product specified as a final product under Rule 57A from 21-10-94 onwards. The Tribunal's decision in the Mettur Spinning Mills case was upheld by the High Court, confirming the view that the fibre used in manufacturing the final product qualified as a Modvatable input.

3. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which granted input duty credit to the respondents for using Viscose Staple Fibre in manufacturing the final product during the relevant period. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the respondents' entitlement to Modvat credit for the input used in the production process.
2008 (9) TMI 742

Issues:
1. Correct classification of "Aluminium Casseroles" under the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, involved a dispute regarding the classification of "Aluminium Casseroles" for duty purposes. The appellant claimed classification under sub-heading No. 7615 19 40, availing an exemption notification, while the Revenue argued for classification under heading 7612. The appellant referenced HSN Explanatory Notes and classification opinions under Heading 7615.19, emphasizing that disposable Aluminium foil containers commonly used in kitchens fall under this heading, even if not durable. They also cited a decision from the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa supporting their position. The Tribunal noted that durability was not a requirement in the relevant tariff heading and concluded that such casseroles should be classified under Tariff Heading 7615.19.

The Tribunal confirmed a duty of Rs. 3,86,18,635 against the appellant and imposed a penalty of the same amount. However, upon considering the appellant's arguments and the supporting materials, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions regarding the classification of the "Aluminium Casseroles." As a result, the Tribunal unconditionally allowed the stay petition and scheduled the appeal for an expedited hearing on 15-10-2008 due to the significant revenue involved in the matter.

In summary, the judgment primarily revolved around the correct classification of "Aluminium Casseroles" under the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal, after evaluating the arguments presented by the appellant and the Revenue, sided with the appellant's interpretation based on relevant legal provisions and precedents, leading to a favorable decision for the appellant.
2008 (9) TMI 741

Additional evidence - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Held that:- It was not open for the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to take fresh material on record by the impugned order dated 25-7-2008. The Tribunal has directed the Assessing Authority to record the statements of Sri Dinesh Singh, A.C.A and Sri G.K. Lath, Chartered Accountant, which will amount additional evidence/material in the case. By the judgment and order passed by this Court, the Tribunal was directed to adjudicate the matter fresh on the basis of the material on record. When a direction is issued to an Authority or Tribunal to do a certain thing in a certain manner, the thing must be done in that manner and in no other manner. In the instant case, the matter was remitted to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by this Court with certain directions and it was not open for the Tribunal to take fresh evidence in the matter as no such direction was issued by this Court. The impugned order by which a fresh direction has been issued by the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer is legally not sustainable. W.P. allowed.
2008 (9) TMI 740

Issues involved: Alleged wrongful availment of Cenvat credit on cement not utilized in the manufacture of final product, denial of cross-examination, violation of principles of natural justice, involvement of authorized signatory, imposition of penalties.

The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of Cement, were alleged to have availed Cenvat credit on cement not utilized in the final product. The adjudicating authority denied credit and imposed penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision. The appellant contended that the cement received was set cement and utilized in the final product, citing the chemical examiner's observation on adulteration and denial of cross-examination as violations of natural justice. The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case.

The Revenue, represented by the Learned DR, supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings, alleging the use of set cement instead of fresh cement by the appellants. The Revenue claimed the appellants failed to provide evidence of cement utilization from a specific supplier.

Upon review, it was revealed that the appellants indeed used set cement in their manufacturing process, as per the statement of the authorized signatory. However, the supplier denied supplying set cement, and the chemical examiner deemed the mixture adulterated and unsuitable for manufacturing cement. The Tribunal found the chemical examiner's view irrelevant and focused on the lack of evidence regarding cement utilization from the specific supplier. The non-utilization of cement in the final product was detected during an inspection, leading to a justified demand for duty and penalty against appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 2 was found not involved in the evasion of duty, leading to the reversal of the penalty imposed on them.

In conclusion, the appeal of appellant No. 1 was rejected, while the appeal of appellant No. 2 was allowed, based on the findings related to the utilization of cement in the manufacturing process.
2008 (9) TMI 739

Issues involved: Classification of goods under different headings, imposition of penalty, plea of limitation.

The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of plastic goods (stools @ patlas) under Heading 3924.90 by the appellants, while the authorities contended that the proper classification should be under Heading 9403.00 as other furniture. Demands were raised against the appellants for the period 1995-96 and 1996-97, leading to the imposition of penalties confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Original Adjudicating Authority noted that the appellants had misdeclared the product under Chapter 39 and wrongly cleared it at a 'nil' rate of duty, knowing that the goods should be classified under Heading 9403.00. However, it was acknowledged that the appellants had filed declarations claiming classification under Heading 3924.90. The Revenue could have corrected the classification if they disagreed, as there was no suppression of material facts by the appellants. The case was based on records maintained by the assessee.

Although the plea of limitation was raised before the Commissioner (Appeals), it was not discussed. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the issue pertained to the classification of goods with a bona fide belief, and there was no evidence of deliberate misclassification. Citing precedents, the penalty imposed on the appellants was set aside. The appellate authority accepted the bona fide belief of the appellants and overturned the penalty, a decision not appealed against by the Revenue.

Given the finding of bona fide belief by the appellate authority and the absence of an appeal on this aspect, the appellants were allowed to contest the demand on the grounds of limitation. Since the entire demand was raised after the normal period of limitation, it was set aside as time-barred, leading to the appeal being allowed on this issue.
2008 (9) TMI 738

Issues: Import of goods violating DGFT conditions, penalty imposition, re-export direction modification, quality standard certification requirement, supply to Defence Ministry certification.

Analysis:

1. Violation of DGFT Conditions: The case involves the importation of goods from Bangladesh by the appellants in October 2007, with the goods being supplied in February 2008. However, during this period, the DGFT imposed a restriction that the goods must meet BIS standards and the exporter should be registered with BIS. The violation of this condition occurred unintentionally as the goods were ordered before the restriction was in place.

2. Penalty Imposition: The advocate for the appellants argued that the goods were meant for supply to the Defence Ministry, and the appellants had given an undertaking to the Customs Authorities. Considering the unique circumstances of the case, a lenient approach was deemed necessary. The judge reduced the penalty imposed by the lower authorities from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 5,000 due to the contravention of the Import Policy.

3. Re-export Direction Modification: The original authority had directed re-export of the impugned goods. However, the judge modified this direction, allowing the appellants to take clearance of the goods on the condition that they produce a certificate from local BIS Authorities confirming the quality standard of the goods. Additionally, the appellants were required to provide a certificate to the Customs Authorities proving that the goods had been supplied to the Defence Ministry.

4. Quality Standard Certification Requirement: The judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring that the impugned goods meet the quality standard set by the BIS. The appellants were allowed to clear the goods only upon providing the necessary certification from the local BIS Authorities.

5. Supply to Defence Ministry Certification: Another condition imposed was that the appellants must produce a certificate to the Customs Authorities confirming that the impugned goods had indeed been supplied to the Defence Ministry. This certification was a crucial requirement for allowing the clearance of the goods.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed with a reduced penalty, modification of the re-export direction, and the imposition of conditions related to quality standard certification and certification of supply to the Defence Ministry. The judgment highlighted the unintentional nature of the violation and the need for a lenient approach considering the specific circumstances of the case.
2008 (9) TMI 737

Issues:
Credit denial based on invoice details and procedural lapses under Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the denial of credit amounting to Rs. 12,02,982/-, Rs. 20,62,759/-, and Rs. 6,67,259/- due to various reasons such as the invoice not being in favor of the appellant unit, lack of necessary certificate under Rule 57E, and insufficient details in the invoices as required by the Central Excise Rules. The appellant did not challenge the denial of credit on other grounds during the appeal hearing. The appellant argued that as per the amended Rules 57G and 57T of the Central Excise Rules, credit should not be denied merely for minor procedural lapses. They cited a Board's Circular stating that proper inquiries should be made regarding duty payment, receipt of inputs in the factory, and their use in manufacturing excisable goods before denying credit. The appellant contended that in this case, there was no dispute regarding duty payment, receipt, and use of goods, making the denial of credit unsustainable.

The revenue, on the other hand, argued that verification was necessary as per the amended provisions of Rule 57G and the Board's circular. They justified the denial of credit due to the duty paying documents not complying with the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal noted the amendments made through Notification No. 7/99, dated 9-2-99, to Rule 57G and Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, along with the issuance of the Board's circular on 23-2-99. The circular emphasized conducting proper inquiries before issuing Show Cause Notices for procedural lapses and ensuring that Modvat credit is correct. It directed that adjudication proceedings should be initiated only if after due inquiry, incorrect credit is found. The Tribunal, considering the circular applicable to pending cases, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, taking into account the amended provisions of Rule 57G and Rule 57T, and providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
2008 (9) TMI 736

Issues: Export of medicines to USA in violation of Rule 31 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977; Confiscation of goods, penalty imposition, reliability of guidelines from a website.

Analysis:
1. The case involves the export of medicines to the USA by the applicant, declared as 'non-controlled medicines in blister packings.' The department alleged that the export was not permitted under US laws, citing guidelines from a website. Consequently, the goods were held liable for confiscation, a portion of the sale proceeds was confiscated, and a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed for violating Rule 31 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.

2. The applicant argued that the guidelines from the website used by the department were unreliable. They highlighted that multiple consignments of the same medicines had been exported to various customers in the USA without any seizures or legal actions, challenging the department's assertion of a violation of US laws. Moreover, the applicant pointed out that Rule 31, the basis of the penalty, had been deleted post the alleged violation.

3. After considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal found that the penalty imposed should be waived in this case. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to waive the pre-deposit of the penalty and stayed the recovery of the penalty until the appeal was disposed of. This decision was made based on the arguments presented by the applicant regarding the reliability of the website guidelines and the absence of any legal actions in the USA against the exported medicines.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of export violation, confiscation, penalty imposition, and the reliability of the website guidelines, providing a comprehensive understanding of the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi.
2008 (9) TMI 735

Issues:
Appeal against order requesting enhancement of penalty to 100% under Section 11AC for failure to provide proof of export within required time.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad involved a dispute regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC on the respondent for failing to provide proof of export within the stipulated time. The respondents, a 100% EOU, had cleared goods for export but failed to furnish the necessary documentation. The adjudication proceedings resulted in a demand for customs duty and a substantial penalty. The Revenue contended that the penalty should be 25% under Section 11AC. The Tribunal noted that no investigation had been conducted into the fate of the exported goods and found no evidence of deliberate misdeclaration or fraud by the respondents to evade duty payment. As the respondents had undertaken to provide proof of export but failed to do so, and the Department was aware of the goods' removal, the Tribunal concluded that the mandatory penalty under Section 11AC was not applicable in this case. Consequently, the appeal by Revenue was rejected, and the cross-objections by the respondents were also disposed of by the Tribunal.

This judgment highlights the importance of substantiating allegations of non-compliance before imposing penalties under Section 11AC. The Tribunal emphasized the need for thorough investigations and concrete evidence to establish culpability for non-compliance with export requirements. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal found that the mandatory penalty under Section 11AC was not warranted. The decision underscores the principle that penalties should be imposed judiciously based on substantiated facts rather than mere assumptions or procedural lapses. By rejecting the appeal and disposing of the cross-objections, the Tribunal clarified the application of penalty provisions in cases of export-related non-compliance, providing guidance for future similar cases.
2008 (9) TMI 734

Wires - Defective insulation wires - Marketability/Excisability - Held that: - marketable short length wires and cables are not to be confused with waste and scrap which are excisable - there is no material on record to prove that the impugned goods are marketable, the same have to be held as no excisable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
2008 (9) TMI 733

Issues:
1. Compliance with Tribunal's stay order by various appellants.
2. Commissioner's application for dismissal of appeals for non-compliance.

Compliance with Tribunal's Stay Order:
The judgment pertains to a miscellaneous application filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, seeking the dismissal of appeals of various appellants due to non-compliance with the Tribunal's stay order. The main appellant, M/s. Sameer Industries, was directed to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs, and other appellants were directed to deposit part of the penalties imposed. Subsequent modifications were allowed for some appellants, except for a few specific companies. On a compliance check, it was found that all the concerned appellants had complied with the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal noted the compliance and rejected the Commissioner's application for dismissal of appeals based on non-compliance, emphasizing that such dismissal is not solely dependent on the Commissioner's application but rather on the actual compliance status of the appellants.

Commissioner's Application for Dismissal of Appeals:
The Commissioner's application for dismissal of appeals for non-compliance with the stay orders was based on the involvement of substantial Government revenue. However, the Tribunal found the application surprising as all the appellants in question had complied with the stay order as modified by subsequent orders. The Tribunal expressed its lack of understanding and appreciation for the Commissioner's prayer for dismissal, highlighting that the dismissal for non-compliance with stay orders is not solely dependent on the Commissioner's application. The Tribunal rejected the application, noting that it was made in a routine and mechanical manner without considering the developments before the Tribunal. The judgment concluded by rejecting the Commissioner's application and emphasizing that the dismissal of appeals for non-compliance with stay orders is based on actual compliance status rather than the Commissioner's request.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the Tribunal's emphasis on actual compliance with stay orders by the appellants and the rejection of the Commissioner's application for dismissal based on non-compliance.
2008 (9) TMI 732

Issues: Classification of products under Tariff Heading, Time limitation for demanding duty, Waiver of pre-deposit of duty

Classification of Products under Tariff Heading:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of absorbent cotton wools and non-absorbent cotton wools under the Central Excise Tariff. The applicant argued that absorbent cotton should be classified under Tariff Heading 5601, not under Heading 3005, as it is not impregnated or medicated. On the other hand, the revenue contended that both types of cotton wools should be classified under Heading 3005 for medical or surgical purposes. The Tribunal examined samples provided by the applicant, noting that absorbent cotton wools were packed for retail sale and used for medical purposes, while non-absorbent cotton wools were used for other purposes. The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's argument regarding the classification of absorbent cotton wools cleared as per IP standards. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit a specific amount within a specified period, with the remaining duty and penalty waived upon compliance.

Time Limitation for Demanding Duty:
The applicant raised the issue of time limitation for demanding duty, arguing that the demand was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued for the period from 2004-05 to 2006-07, and earlier clearances were made under specific notifications known to the revenue. However, the revenue contended that as the applicant was not a registered unit with Central Excise and had not filed any declarations, they were not aware of the production of the items in question. The Tribunal acknowledged that the issue of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law, which would be further examined during the appeal hearing.

Waiver of Pre-Deposit of Duty:
The applicant sought a waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 57,92,123 and penalties. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal decided that it was not a fit case for a total waiver of duty concerning the demand related to absorbent cotton wools. Instead, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs. ten lakhs within eight weeks, following which the pre-deposit of the remaining duty and penalty would be waived upon compliance. The compliance was reported on 11th November 2008, concluding the matter.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi provides a comprehensive overview of the issues related to the classification of products under Tariff Heading, time limitation for demanding duty, and the waiver of pre-deposit of duty.
2008 (9) TMI 731

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi rejected the condonation of delay in filing an appeal due to a family property dispute, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. (2008 (9) TMI 731 - CESTAT, New Delhi)
2008 (9) TMI 730

Issues:
1. Dispute over Annual Production Capacity under Compounded Levy Scheme.
2. Refund of excess duty paid during the relevant period.
3. Crediting refund into the consumer welfare fund under Section 12A due to alleged passing on of duty burden.
4. Appeal against adjudicating authority's order.
5. Application of unjust enrichment principle.
6. Finding of fact by Commissioner (Appeals) that duty was not recovered from customers.
7. Revenue's challenge to the application of unjust enrichment principle.

Analysis:

1. The case involves a dispute regarding the Annual Production Capacity of a company engaged in manufacturing hot re-rolling products of non-alloy steel under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The dispute arose due to the introduction of the Compounded Levy Scheme, which led to the fixation of the Annual Production Capacity by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Appeals were filed, and the matter was eventually settled by the Commissioner (Appeals) resulting in a refund of excess duty paid during the relevant period.

2. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim but credited it to the consumer welfare fund under Section 12A of the Act, alleging that the company failed to prove that the duty burden was not passed on to customers. This action was challenged by the company, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in Ahmedabad.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal on the grounds that the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply, citing a judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case. The Commissioner also examined the issue on merits and concluded that the duty element was not recovered from customers based on detailed submissions and evidence provided by the company.

4. The Revenue, dissatisfied with the Commissioner (Appeals) order, contested the finding that the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply to goods cleared under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The Revenue's appeal primarily focused on this aspect, citing a judgment from the Hon'ble CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, to support their argument.

5. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not challenge the fact-finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the duty was not passed on to customers. Detailed evidence presented by the company, including worksheets and sales invoices, supported this finding. Since the Revenue did not rebut this finding in their appeal, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the evidence presented, the application of the unjust enrichment principle, and the lack of challenge by the Revenue regarding the finding that the duty was not passed on to customers.
2008 (9) TMI 729

Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The judgment pertains to applications filed for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties amounting to Rs. 3,62,31,930/- by the applicants engaged in the manufacture of branded Gutka. The Revenue alleged that the goods were cleared without payment of duty and sent to various places under fictitious names, based on entries in private records and railway receipts seized during searches. The applicants cited a Tribunal decision in a similar case to support their contention that reliance on booking clerk and booking agent evidence does not warrant confirmation of demand. Additionally, they raised objections regarding the recording of statements of witnesses after the issuance of show cause notice without addendum and the reliance on production capacity evidence without providing copies of relevant panchnamas.

The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the evidence presented by the Revenue, such as the absence of consignee details in records recovered from the booking agent's premises and the lack of panchnama copies supplied to the applicants for verification. It was observed that statements of witnesses and the proprietor were recorded post the show cause notice issuance, and the Adjudicating authority relied on these statements. Drawing parallels with a previous Tribunal decision, the Tribunal found merit in the applicants' contentions and consequently waived the pre-deposit of duty and penalties, allowing the stay petitions. The Revenue was granted the liberty to refer to a pending High Court decision in a related case for further action.
2008 (9) TMI 728

Penalty - Quantum of - Review by Tribunal - Rectification of mistake - Held that: - this is a case which involves interest-liability on the duty evaded. There is no evidence on record that the Appellants paid the interest amount within the required time of one month from the date of issue of the impugned Order - there is no mistake apparent from record and in any case, no review of the-Tribunal’s Order is permissible through a Miscellaneous Application for rectification of mistake - rectification of mistake application dismissed being not maintainable.
2008 (9) TMI 727

The appellants filed a miscellaneous application for product demonstration. The Tribunal allowed the application for better understanding, rescheduled the final hearing to 25-9-2008, and directed the matter to be heard another day due to the unavailability of the Respondent's representative.
2008 (9) TMI 726

Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Amendment of documents, correction of clerical error - Held that: - the case falls within the preview of Section 154 and Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 and therefore the goods should be re-assessed. If that would have been the case, it was for respondents to approach Asst. Commissioner for invoking provision of Sections 154 and 149 of Customs Act, 1962 and he should have obtained a speaking order on the same and then could have challenged the same before Commissioner (Appeals) which is not so in the present case. After rejection of refund claim the assessee went in appeal. On such appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) cannot go on different footing and order de novo assessment which assessment was never a issue before him nor part of Asst. Commissioner’s order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
2008 (9) TMI 725

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the imported goods are obscene under Section 292(1) of the Indian Penal Code and the Customs Notification No. 1-Cus., dated 18th January, 1964.
2. Whether the goods are harmful publications under the Young Persons (Harmful Publication) Act, 1956.
3. Whether the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Whether the importer is liable for penal action under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Whether the lower authority's decision was valid without expert opinion.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Obscenity of Imported Goods:
The Department argued that the goods were obscene as per Section 292(1) of the Indian Penal Code, which prohibits lascivious content that appeals to prurient interests and tends to deprave and corrupt persons. The goods included items such as "Glass Games," "Carton Games," and "Toys (Dart and Shooter Games)" with explicit instructions for performing erotic acts. The lower authority concluded that these goods were obscene and ordered their confiscation. The appellant contended that the authority misunderstood the terms "obscenity," "sensuous," and "sexually explicit," and that the goods were not intended for minors but were labeled for adult use only.

2. Harmful Publications:
The Department also argued that the goods were harmful publications under the Young Persons (Harmful Publication) Act, 1956, as they were not suitable for young persons and violated the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy. The appellant did not provide a specific counter-argument on this point but emphasized that similar products were available globally without objection.

3. Liability for Confiscation:
The goods, valued at Rs. 2,36,185 (CIF), were deemed liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, for violating the Customs Notification No. 1-Cus., dated 18th January, 1964, which prohibits the import of obscene articles. The lower authority's decision to confiscate the goods was based on the obscene nature of the imported items.

4. Penal Action Against Importer:
The importer was found liable for penal action under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, for deliberately importing prohibited goods. A penalty of Rs. 40,000/- was imposed on the appellant, which the appellate authority deemed just and fair considering the nature and value of the goods.

5. Validity of Decision Without Expert Opinion:
The appellant argued that the lower authority's decision was invalid without an expert opinion on the obscenity of the goods. The appellate authority noted that the determination of obscenity is the responsibility of the court and does not necessarily require expert opinion. The Supreme Court in Ajay Goswami v. Union of India held that the court could rely on its own assessment and, if necessary, seek views from literary personalities. The lower authority had sought an opinion from Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification, who declined to provide an opinion. The appellate authority concluded that the lower authority's decision was valid and did not require an expert opinion.

Conclusion:
The appeal was rejected, upholding the lower authority's decision to confiscate the obscene goods and impose a penalty on the importer. The appellate authority found that the goods met the legal test of obscenity and that the lower authority had acted within its jurisdiction without the need for expert opinion.