TMI Blog1986 (2) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formation, the Preventive Officers of Central Excise Customs, Ajmer, searched the residential premises of the appellant on 28-1-1980 and seized the miscellaneous goods valued at Rs. 3,675/- and clothes hosiery goods valued at Rs. 4.874/- alleged to be of foreign origin. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 4-3-1980 was issued to the appellant asking him to show cause and explain as to why the seized goods should not be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act and why further penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 112, ibid for alleged contravention of Sections 11C, 11D and 11E of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Clause 3 of Import Export Order, 1955, issued under Section 3(i) of the Import Export (Control) Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statement of the appellant, ordered for the release of most of the goods holding that the same were legally acquired/possessed by the appellant. Regarding the remaining seized goods of S. No. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16 to 19, 24 to 30, 36, 40 to 42, 45 to 49, 57, 58, 61, 62, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73 to 78, 82 to 86 of Annexure A and items at S. Nos. 3 to 7, 9 to 12, 15 to 17, 19 and 20 of Annexure B of the recovery memos annexured to panchnama dated 28-1-1980, the Adjudicating Authority ordered for confiscation absolutely under Sections 111(d)and 118 of the Customs Act, 1962, holding that since these articles were not covered by affidavits of five persons, the same is liable to be confiscated. The Adjudicating Authority also impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elieve the same explanation of the appellant with respect to the remaining goods. After perusing the record and the plea advanced by the appellant, and considering the nature and quantity of the goods seized, I am of the view that the appeal deserves to be allowed and there is no reason to disbelieve the version given by the appellant with respect to the goods ordered to be seized, and both the authorities below erred in holding that the explanation of the appellant with respect to the goods ordered to be confiscated was after thought. 6. Before parting with the case, I would also like to point out that the impugned order-in-original, as confirmed by the appellate court, suffers from the patent infirmities, that is to say- (i) that fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods and the reason to believe must relate to the period of time when the seizure was made. But in the instant case, I am relieved of this onerous task of deciding the legal impact of the said infirmities. Firstly because these points were not taken up by the learned Counsel for the appellant at the time of arguments and, secondly, because I am allowing the appeal on other grounds as stated above. On the point of clarity, it may be stated that the same would be decided as and when the suitable occasion would arise. 7. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I allow this appeal and set aside the order-in-original, passed by the adjudicating authority and confirmed by the appellate authority, and direct that the personal penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
