9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Setting aside the order of confiscation and penalty imposed on gold biscuits recovered from the appellant's residence. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order. Failure to consider all points raised in the Memorandum of Appeal. Lack of detailed findings in the impugned order. Non-application of mind by the Collector (Appeals) in the order. Analysis: The case involved the appellant seeking to set aside the order of confiscation and penalty imposed on six gold biscuits recovered from their residence. The Department conducted a search at the appellant's premises and recovered the gold biscuits along with other items. The appellant was issued a Show Cause Notice under Sections 111(d) and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, which the appellant denied in their reply. The Deputy Collector adjudicated the matter, ordering the confiscation of the gold biscuits and imposing a personal penalty. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the Deputy Collector's findings. The appellant, represented by counsel, argued that the order violated natural justice principles, and the Collector (Appeals) failed to consider all points raised in the Memorandum of Appeal. The appellant also contended that the impugned order lacked detailed findings and was not a speaking order. The appellant relied on a Madras High Court judgment to support their contentions. The Revenue argued that the appellant's statements were inconsistent and indicated an attempt to fabricate evidence. The claim of purchasing the gold biscuits from specific individuals was found unreliable upon verification. The Revenue contended that the appellant's actions, including filing misleading affidavits, demonstrated an attempt to mislead. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and agreed with the appellant's argument regarding the non-application of mind by the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal observed that the impugned order lacked detailed examination of the submissions and did not provide findings on the points raised by the appellant. Referring to a previous judgment, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity for a thorough consideration of all points raised before making a decision. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Collector (Appeals) with directions to record findings on the submissions made earlier. The Tribunal granted the appellant a fresh opportunity to present their case before the Collector (Appeals). As the matter was being remanded, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case beyond addressing the procedural deficiencies. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing the appellant with a chance to have their submissions properly considered.
|
