TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mobile phones by the authorities from both the respondents. The department's contention is that the respondents are unable to produce any documents for the illicit possession of these mobile phones. On careful perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has given a detailed finding which are as under :- "6. On a careful consideration of the submission made by the Appellant in their appeal memo, I find that the issue in both the appeal relates to confiscation of foreign origin mobile phones due to non-production of documents showing licit acquisition. In the Tokyo Electronics case, the Adjudicating authority has confiscated the mobile phones etc. all of foreign origin, on the ground that the suppliers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to seizure of notified prohibited goods and confiscation under the Customs Act read with Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Moreover, .the case laws mentioned by the Adjudicating Authority in the order mostly relate to confiscation of Gold, Silver, Diamonds etc. which are not freely importable into the country and are in the nature of restricted goods, not freely importable. Therefore applying the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of V. Muniyandi (supra) and Sadbhavana v. CC, Indore (supra) cited by the appellant read with the Board's Circular dated 14-12-1965, I have no hesitation in holding that the confiscation of the Mobile phones etc. vide the impugned order dated 4-5- 2006 is not legally sustainable and therefore the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .B Bhoonnull are clearly distinguishable in the facts of this case because the seizure in those cases are of notified/prohibited good and confiscation was under the Customs Act read with Imports Exports (Control) Act, 2947. Therefore, applying the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of V. Muniyandi (supra) and Sadbhavana v. CC, Indore (supra) cited by the Appellant, read with the Board's Circular dated 14-12-1965, I have no hesitation in holding that the confiscation of the mobile phones etc. vide the impugned order dated 17-5-2006 is not legally sustainable and therefore the same is set aside with consequential relief to the appellant." 3. It can be noticed from the reproduced findings that the Revenue has not been able to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
