9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - "Is it open in law to the Hon'ble Tribunal to hear an appeal from a person who is not aggrieved person in the eyes of law in terms of Section 129A and grant a prayer/relief on an appeal of the order which does not cause a grievance to that person? For the sake of clarification, in the instant case, the applicant before the Hon'ble Tribunal construed to be aggrieved only with the imposition of the penalty and not with the order relating to the confiscation of seized currency ?" 3.The facts relevant for the present application are as follows : The Respondent No. 1 is a Company carrying on business of Angadia i.e. the business of carriage of documents and goods. The Respondent No. 2 is a Director of Respondent No. 1. 4.On 26th April, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l addresses of CM Bankers and MP Bankers are not known to them. 5.After recording of the statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and on completion of investigation a show cause notice dated October 7, 1991 was issued to the Respondents, their employee and CM and MP Bankers, requiring them to show cause as to why the Indian currency amounting to Rs. 15,50,000/- under seizure should not be confiscated under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 and why personal penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 6.The owners of seized currency viz. CM and MP Bankers did not participate in the adjudication proceedings even though a show cause notice was issued to them. However, the Respondents in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal. 8.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Commissioner of Customs (P) has filed the present customs application under Section 130(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 and as stated hereinabove, while admitting the Application, this Court granted Rule only on Question No. 2. 9.Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that the confiscated Indian currency admittedly did not belong to the Respondents and that the Respondents claimed to be in possession of the said currency in their capacity as carrier of goods. Although, it was claimed that the said amount belongs to the CM Bankers and MP Bankers, in spite of the notice, said owners of the currency had chosen not to participate in the adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdiction and the questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order can only be referred. By relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Scindia Steam Navigation Company Limited reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1633, it was submitted that when a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, the said question cannot be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal, notwithstanding that it may arise on the findings given by the authority. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. CEGAT, New Delhi reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 341 (P & H) and the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the Indian currency because according to the Revenue, there is clear admission on the part of the Respondents that the seized currency did not belong to the Respondents and that the said currency represented sale proceeds of smuggled gold and silver which is liable to be confiscated under Section 121 of the Customs Act. It was the contention of the Revenue that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, even though retracted belatedly, binds the Respondents. Under these circumstances it was the contention of the Revenue that when the Respondents have admittedly no title to the confiscated currency and the alleged owners of the currency had chosen not to participate in the adjudication proceedings and claim the cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect that the seized currency represented the sale proceeds of smuggled Gold and Silver, that the Respondents were not the owners of the seized currency and further the fact that the actual owner of the currency has not come forward to claim the confiscated currency, whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the confiscation order, is a question of law, which does arise out of the order of the Tribunal. In other words, the admission of the Respondents was a valuable piece of evidence and on the face of such evidence whether the Tribunal could have held that the questions raised by the Revenue did not arise out of the order of the Tribunal is a question which requires consideration. However, the questions as framed by the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
