9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Contestation of correctness of order-in-appeal regarding confiscation of seized goods (silk yarn) and penalty imposition. Analysis: The Revenue appealed against the order-in-appeal that set aside the confiscation of seized goods (silk yarn) and penalty imposition on the respondent. The Revenue argued that the goods were of foreign origin (Chinese Silk Yarn) found at the respondent's premises, making them liable for confiscation due to failure to prove legal possession. However, the Tribunal found that the respondent had purchased the goods from known importers, M/s. Anmol Trading Company and M/s. SB Textiles, Varanasi, who dealt in Chinese/Korean Silk Yarn. The bills provided by the respondent confirmed the purchase, and there was no evidence to doubt their authenticity. Since the goods were not prohibited under Section 123 of the Act, no presumption of smuggling could be made. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to reverse the order-in-original, setting aside the confiscation under Section 111(d) and the penalty under Section 112, as there was no evidence to falsify the purchase from the legitimate importers. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, concluding that the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly overturned the order-in-original and annulled the confiscation of goods and penalty imposed on the respondent. The Tribunal found no illegality in the decision, emphasizing that the respondent's purchase from recognized importers and the lack of evidence proving smuggling justified the reversal of the initial order. The appeal of the Revenue was therefore rejected based on the evidence and legal provisions presented during the proceedings.
|
