Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1988 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1988 (3) TMI 344 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing Reference Application 2. Stay of the operation of the impugned order 3. Questions of Law raised in Reference Applications regarding the Tribunal's order 4. Competency and authority of the Authorised Representative to make concessions 5. Legality of the Tribunal's decision based on the concession made 6. Consideration of facts and circumstances by the Tribunal 7. Imposition of penalty on the applicant 8. Use of inculpatory confession by the Authorised Representative Condonation of Delay: The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Reference Application due to technical reasons, as the initial application was filed within the stipulated time. The delay was considered for condonation, and the applications for stay were dismissed as the Reference Applications were proposed to be disposed of on the same day. Stay of Operation: The applications for stay of the operation of the impugned order were dismissed as the Tribunal decided to dispose of the Reference Applications on the same day with the consent of the parties. Questions of Law in Reference Applications: The Reference Applications challenged the Tribunal's order dated 29-10-1987, raising various questions of law. These questions included the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the competency of the Authorised Representative to make concessions, the binding nature of the concession on the applicant, the Tribunal's consideration of facts, imposition of penalty, and the use of inculpatory confession. Competency and Authority of Authorised Representative: The Counsel for the applicants argued that the admission made by the Consultant during the appeal was against the law. The Counsel contended that a Consultant does not have the same privileges as an Advocate and cannot plead guilty on behalf of the client. Reference was made to a Full Bench ruling of the Kerala High Court. Legality of Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal considered the submissions made by the parties and reviewed the admission made by the Consultant regarding the contravention under the Gold (Control) Act. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that the inculpatory statements and corroborating evidence established the guilt of the appellants. Imposition of Penalty: The Tribunal found that the offence under the Customs Act was established and upheld the order of absolute confiscation of the gold bars. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the Consultant could not plead guilty on behalf of the client. Use of Inculpatory Confession: The Tribunal dismissed the Reference Applications, stating that a Consultant, authorized to appear on behalf of a client, could put forth a plea similar to that of an Advocate. The Tribunal found no question of law arising from the plea of guilt made by the Consultant and upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence presented. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, including the condonation of delay, stay of operation, questions of law in the Reference Applications, competency of the Authorised Representative, legality of the Tribunal's decision, imposition of penalty, and the use of inculpatory confession.
|