1986 (5) TMI 130 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the Collector's order confiscating gold bars and imposing a penalty.
- Dispute over the recovery of gold and validity of the panchnama.
- Arguments regarding the credibility of witnesses and the appellant's acquittal in a criminal case.
- Interpretation of legal precedents by both parties.
- Decision on the appeal and confirmation of the Collector's order.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the Collector's order confiscating ten bars of gold from the appellant and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,000. The appellant contested the recovery of gold, claiming discrepancies in the panchnama and the evidence provided by witnesses. The appellant's representative argued that the appellant did not sign the panchnama and questioned the credibility of the witnesses involved in the recovery process. Additionally, reliance was placed on the appellant's acquittal in a criminal case under the Gold (Control) Act.

On the other hand, the respondent opposed the appellant's arguments, emphasizing that the recovery took place in a crowded area, making it unlikely for the Customs Officers to falsely implicate the appellant. The respondent highlighted the necessity of local witnesses for the panchnama and referred to legal precedents to support the admissibility of an officer's deposition in uniform as evidence. The respondent contended that the appellant's acquittal in the criminal case did not absolve him from the departmental penalty, citing relevant judgments.

After considering the submissions from both parties, the tribunal rejected the appellant's plea to disown the recovery of gold. The tribunal noted that despite attempts to discredit the witnesses, the recovery was made from the appellant's person after a search conducted by a Customs sepoy. The tribunal found no basis for the appellant's claims of hostility or conspiracy by the Customs Officers. Additionally, the tribunal upheld the respondent's argument that the appellant's acquittal in the criminal case did not invalidate the departmental penalty, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. Consequently, the tribunal confirmed the Collector's order and dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the respondent.