TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t could have also claimed some more gold ornaments out of what are listed in Panchnama dated 19/4/75. It is not the case of the Revenue that the present applicant is not the legal heir of the late appellant Shri A. Raja Rao. Accordingly, Order No. CCE/GOLD/BBSR-I/21/2014 dated 13/.1/2014 passed by the Adjudicating authority is required to be set aside because appellant has some statements to rely upon where as department has only presumptions and assumptions to rely upon. - Decided in favour of Appellant. - Customs Appeal No. C/75431/2014 - ORDER NO : FO/A/75554/15 - Dated:- 9-10-2015 - Shri H.K. Thakur, Technical Member For the Petitioner : Sri Subrat Satpathy, Advocate For the Respondent : Sri S.K. Naskar, A.C. (A.R) ORD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 10 Tolas 15 grains), one piece of long gold chain (weighing 5 Tolas one Anna and 15 grains) and other new remade gold ornaments (weighing 24 Tolas 5 Annas 25 grains); for handing over the same to Shri A. Raja Rao , the father of the present appellant. That while the new gold ornaments of Shri A. Raja Rao were in the possession of Shri Doki J. Swamy the same were seized by the Central Excise Officers on 19/4/1975 alongwith other primary gold and gold ornaments. That two items mentioned at Sl. No. 41 42 of the annexure to Panchnama were the new gold ornaments belonging to Shri A. Raja Rao. That as soon as Shri A. Raja Rao came to know of the seizure he wrote a petition dt. 2.6.1975 to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Cuttack Div ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o approached the office of the Respondent more than three dozen times but no order was passed by the Adjudicating authority till his death.That after the death of Shri A. Raja Rao the present appellant issued registered notices dated 16/7/2008 and 6/9/2008 to Shri Doki J. Swamy to hand over the gold ornaments to him. That on 12/9/2008 Shri Doki J. Swamy wrote to the present appellant that he had only got two items of gold ornaments on 18/9/75 and 19/4/75, weighing as 174.900 gms. received from goldsmith Shri Achari and that the same appear as Sr. No. 41 42 of the seizure Panchnama dated-19/4/1975. That no reply was given by the Respondents to his clients letter written to the authorities. That by a letter dated-12/8/2010 written to the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew ornaments for a marriage on 23/3/75 no person will give gold as late as 21/3/75. That nothing is mentioned against Sr. No. 41 42 of the annexure to Panchnama dated- 19/4/75 that those ornaments belonged to Shri A. Raja Rao. That what was handed over by the appellant were old ornaments weighing 39 Tolas 8 Annas 6 grains but what has been seized is only 174.900 gms. of new ornaments. That due to difference in weight the claim of the appellant is not sustainable. Learned A.R. strongly defended the order passed by the Adjudicating authority. He also furnished a copy of another order-in-original No. CCE/Gold/BBSR-I/2014 dated 13/1/2014 passed by the same Adjudicating authority under which all the gold/ornaments, seized from Shri Doki J. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Atmakuri Raja Rao has kept in my house. That also they have seized . 4.1 It is also observed from the cross-examination of Shri P. Krishna Rao (Supdt.-incharge of search done on 19/4/75), held before Chief Judicial Magistrate on 31/10/1975, that following was stated, interalia, in para-7. 7. It is not fact that the accused made a statement that item Nos. 41 42 belong to one A. Raja Rao, but from the sling attached and on further investigation and claim made by Raja Rao, you could know that these items belong to Raja Rao and was entrusted to the accused for remaking the ornaments . 4.2 In view of the nature of evidences existing above as early as 1975 it cannot be said, as held by adjudicating authority, that claim of Late ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
