9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties. 2. Time-barred appeal due to non-receipt of order copy. 3. Merits of the case regarding confiscation of goods of foreign origin. Analysis: 1. The appeals were directed against the order-in-appeal where the Commissioner upheld the confiscation of seized goods (mobiles) and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority. The goods were seized from the possession of the appellants, and after issuing Show Cause Notices, absolute confiscation and penalties were ordered. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed this order. 2. The Commissioner observed that one of the appellants' appeal was time-barred as the order copy was sent via Speed Post. However, the appellant denied receiving the order and filed an application for a copy, which was directed to be issued personally. The Commissioner failed to consider this, leading to the appeal being deemed time-barred incorrectly. Upon receiving the order copy, the appeal was within time, rendering the time-barred decision unsustainable. 3. The Commissioner also addressed the merits of the case regarding the confiscation of goods of foreign origin. The goods were not notified goods and were freely available in the market. The burden was on the Revenue to prove the goods were smuggled, but no evidence supported this. Reference was made to a case law where confiscation was allowed for non-notified goods without lawful possession, but the current scenario differed as the goods were freely traded in India. The burden to prove the smuggled nature of non-notified goods lay with the Revenue. Citing relevant case laws, the impugned order was set aside for both appellants, allowing their appeals with consequential relief.
|
