9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 552 - AT - CustomsSeizure of gold - Rightful owner - Possession of gold with other person whose goods along with petitioner s gold was seized - Held that - In view of the nature of evidences existing as early as 1975 it cannot be said, as held by adjudicating authority, that claim of Late Shri A. Raja Rao was an after thought. The case of the Revenue will not get any support from the argument; that what A. Raja Rao gave was 39 Tolas, 8 Annas and 6 grams of old ornaments and what is mentioned at Sr. No. 41 & 42of Panchnama dated 19/4/75 is only 174.900 gms; because it can also be viewed that appellant could have also claimed some more gold ornaments out of what are listed in Panchnama dated 19/4/75. It is not the case of the Revenue that the present applicant is not the legal heir of the late appellant Shri A. Raja Rao. Accordingly, Order No. CCE/GOLD/BBSR-I/21/2014 dated 13/.1/2014 passed by the Adjudicating authority is required to be set aside because appellant has some statements to rely upon where as department has only presumptions and assumptions to rely upon. - Decided in favour of Appellant.
Issues:
Late Shri A. Raja Rao's claim to seized gold ornaments. Analysis: The appeal was filed by Shri A. Trinath Rao, son of Late A. Raja Rao, against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar, which held that Shri A. Trinath Rao, as the legal heir of Late Shri A. Raja Rao, had no merit to claim the seized gold ornaments. The appellant's argument was based on events from 1975 when Shri A. Raja Rao entrusted old gold ornaments to a certified goldsmith for making new ornaments. The appellant claimed that the seized gold ornaments belonged to Late Shri A. Raja Rao and provided evidence of his claim, including a petition written by Shri A. Raja Rao in 1975. The case involved multiple legal proceedings, including appeals and court orders over the years. The Revenue, represented by Shri S.K. Naskar, argued that there were contradictions in the appellant's claim and the weight of the seized gold ornaments, questioning the sustainability of the claim. The Revenue cited an order confiscating all gold ornaments seized from another individual without any option of redemption. The appellant's advocate countered by stating that they had not received the said order, challenging the Revenue's argument. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and statements from various sources, including Shri A. Raja Rao, Shri Doki Janardan Swamy, and investigating officers. The Tribunal noted that Shri A. Raja Rao had made claims regarding the seized ornaments as early as 1975, contradicting the Adjudicating authority's view that the claim was an afterthought. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's arguments were based on presumptions and assumptions, while the appellant had concrete statements to rely on. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant, as the legal heir of Late Shri A. Raja Rao, was the rightful claimant of the seized gold ornaments specified in the Panchnama dated 19/4/1975. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Order-in-Original that rejected the appellant's claim and directing the appropriate authority to release the impugned gold ornaments to the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the confiscation of the gold ornaments was not part of the appealed order, and another order mentioned by the Revenue was not agitated in the appeal. The decision was pronounced on 9/10/2015.
|
