9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Revenue's challenge to impugned order, Confiscation of foreign origin goods under Sections 111 and 119, Dismissal of appeal under Section 129E, Commissioner (Appeals) acting contrary to law, Review of own order, Smuggling of non-notified goods, Burden of proof on possessor vs. Revenue, Lack of evidence in impugned order, Setting aside impugned order, Opportunity of hearing to appellant.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the Revenue challenged an impugned order where the Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed the order of the adjudicating authority regarding the confiscation of foreign origin goods, specifically Mobile Phones with A/c, D/c Adapters, under Sections 111 and 119 of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have acted contrary to the law, leading to a mis-carriage of justice. It was noted that when the respondents failed to deposit the penalty as per the order, the Commissioner (Appeals) was obligated to dismiss the appeal under Section 129E and did not have the power to review his own order. Thus, the impugned order was deemed liable to be quashed on this ground alone. Furthermore, the judgment highlighted that even on merits, the impugned order could not be sustained. The foreign origin goods in question were recovered from the respondent who admitted to smuggling them into India. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the respondent's confessional statement and reversed the original order based on the goods not being notified, disregarding the fact that smuggling non-notified goods is impermissible under the law. It was emphasized that in cases of non-notified goods, the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to establish foreign origin and smuggling, which the Commissioner (Appeals) overlooked by not delving into the evidence and material presented by the Revenue. The impugned order was criticized for lacking substance and being unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision after granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, ensuring a fair reconsideration of the case in light of the issues raised regarding the confiscation of foreign origin goods and the procedural errors in the original order.
|
