9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods from Delhi near Chandwaji 40 K.M. from Jaipur on 29-6-2002 by Customs Authorities and goods valued about Rs. 10 Lakhs seized. About Rs. 9 Lakhs worth of the goods appeared to be of Indian make and the remaining of foreign make. They were confiscated in adjudication by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The appellant took up the matter in Appeal before the Commissioner appeals, Jaipur. He held that there is no case made out against the goods which are of Indian Origin. In respect of foreign goods, the Commissioner held that the goods had been notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act 1962 which had the effect of shifting the burden of proof as to legal import to the owner to the person from whose possession or custody ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id in nature as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector v. Kapson Electro Stamping - 1991 (53) E.L.T. A79. The department has also failed to make any enquiry at the manufacturers and to know whether the impugned goods were duty paid or not. This has neither been reflected in the impugned show cause notice nor in the impugned order, which does not demand Central Excise duty. As such in view thereof, the appellants' submissions supported with case law gain strength on the face of weak investigation. In absence of the basic ingredients of Rule 25 ibid for confiscation of goods, I am, therefore constrained to set aside the confiscation of goods made under Central Excise Acts and Rules. Since, no viable case of violation of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will be for the Railway Authorities to decide what is to be done with the goods. All observations made by them with regard to the ownership of goods are therefore, set aside. This however, does not mean that we have adjudicated on the question of ownership of the goods, nor that we are accepting that the petitioner is the owner of the goods nor that he was entitled to possession from the Railways. The Customs Authorities will restore the goods to the Northern Railways and it will be for the petitioner to make an appropriate claim before the Railway Authorities to decide the claim of the Writ Petitioner in accordance with Law." 4. Position under Central Excise law is not any different. Central Excise Law is a law on taxation of goods m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eleased to the appellant without precondition since the proceedings initiated were found to be not sustainable. 6. The grievance raised by the transporter with regard to the confiscated foreign made goods is that the Commissioner has passed the order of confiscation on an erroneous belief that the electronics goods under seizure had been notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act. The electronic items specifically mentioned in the order is Car Stereo. The learned Counsel for the transporter has placed Notification No. 204-Cus., dated 20-7-1984 as amended upto 15-3-1993 issued under Section 123 of the Customs Act. A perusal of this Notification makes it clear that Car stereo is not one of the items notified. Therefore, the finding a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
