9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confirmation of absolute confiscation of foreign mark Gold Biscuits 2. Rejection of retraction and evidence produced 3. Bias in the order and failure to consider retraction 4. Validity of import and duty paying receipts 5. Consideration of documentary evidence and retraction 6. Need for a de novo consideration and disposal within a specific timeframe Analysis: 1. The appeal arose from the confirmation of the absolute confiscation of foreign mark Gold Biscuits. The Commissioner confirmed the confiscation based on the belief that the goods were illicitly imported. Despite the appellant's retraction and evidence of licit import, the confiscation was upheld along with a personal penalty. 2. The appellant argued that his initial statement was not voluntary and that the retraction should have been considered along with the circumstantial and documentary evidence. The Commissioner's failure to do so was criticized as biased, leading to a request for a fresh consideration excluding the retracted statement. 3. The Revenue strongly opposed the appellant's plea, emphasizing the voluntary admission made during the initial statement and dismissing the retraction as a concocted story. The Commissioner's decision was supported as sustainable based on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The appellant contended that the retraction was immediate and supported by valid duty paying receipts, indicating a legal import of the gold biscuits. The argument highlighted the legality of transactions involving non-residents selling gold biscuits to residents. 5. Upon careful consideration, it was noted that the Commissioner failed to consider the retraction made by the appellant while in judicial custody. The evidence provided, including affidavits affirming licit import and sale of the gold biscuits, was not adequately examined. The order was deemed non-speaking and influenced by the initial statement, leading to a decision to remand the matter for a fresh consideration. 6. The judgment directed the original authority to conduct a de novo consideration, granting the appellant a full opportunity to present their case. A specific timeframe of 5 months was set for the disposal of the appeal, considering the age of the matter and the need for timely resolution.
|
