9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeals for restoration, Confiscation of goods for smuggling, Evidence of unauthorized exportation, Imposition of penalty.
Appeals for Restoration: The Applicants filed Applications for restoration of the Appeals that were dismissed for non-prosecution, claiming they had not received the notice of hearing. The final Order dismissing the Appeals was recalled, and the Appeals were restored to their original numbers. Confiscation of Goods for Smuggling: The Appeals were filed against the impugned order confiscating sarees and sugar on the grounds of smuggling to Bangladesh. The Appellants, claiming to be shopkeepers near the border, argued that the goods were unlawfully taken away and requested the return of the goods immediately after seizure. They denied evidence of smuggling and ownership of the goods, contesting the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 500 each. Evidence of Unauthorized Exportation: The Revenue contended that due to the location near the border, there was a tendency for illicit export to Bangladesh, justifying the confiscation of the goods. However, the judgment highlighted the lack of evidence on record to prove unauthorized exportation, leading to the unsustainability of the impugned order confiscating the goods and imposing penalties. Imposition of Penalty: The judgment set aside the impugned order confiscating the goods and imposing penalties on the Appellants, as there was no evidence to support the claim of unauthorized exportation to Bangladesh. The Appeals were allowed, emphasizing the absence of proof for the allegations made by the Revenue. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed, including the restoration of Appeals, the confiscation of goods for smuggling, the evaluation of evidence regarding unauthorized exportation, and the imposition of penalties. The judgment focused on the lack of evidence supporting the allegations of smuggling, leading to the reversal of the impugned order and the allowance of the Appeals.
|
