9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Departmental appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside confiscation of goods with redemption fine and penalty. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad involved a departmental appeal challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which had set aside the confiscation of goods along with the redemption fine and penalty imposed. The relevant facts of the case included the seizure of foreign-made electronic goods from the respondent's premises, with the importer claiming to have purchased the goods from Manish Market, Mumbai, without any import-related bills. The original authority had ordered the confiscation of the goods, imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 25,000, and a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the respondent company. Upon review, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the adjudicating authority had not provided reasons as to why the seized goods were prohibited or restricted, noting that the goods were not notified under Section 123. The Commissioner also acknowledged that the importer had presented purchase bills, which were considered sufficient evidence to establish the licit acquisition of the goods unless the department could disprove the authenticity of the bills. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments, found that the goods in question were not listed under Section 123 of the Customs Act. Additionally, the department failed to present valid grounds to challenge the reasoning and findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the departmental appeal, affirming that there was no need to interfere with the Commissioner's order. The judgment highlights the importance of providing adequate justification for confiscating goods and the significance of documentary evidence in proving the legitimate acquisition of goods in customs cases. The Tribunal's decision underscores the requirement for departments to substantiate their claims with valid grounds when challenging lower authorities' decisions in such matters.
|
