1996 (9) TMI 440 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for taking on record a representative for the deceased appellant.
2. Reference to the High Court for questions of law arising from the order.
3. Confiscation of gold and Indian currency, penalty imposed based on a confessional statement.
4. Questions regarding the admissibility and reliance on retracted confessional statements, burden of proof, and evidence required.
5. Determination of whether certain questions raised in the application are questions of law.
6. Citation of legal precedents supporting the view on retracted confessions.
7. Analysis of the evidentiary value of retracted confessions in the present case.
8. Burden of proof on the appellant regarding the source of acquired currency.
9. Dismissal of the application as no question of law for reference was found.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved several key issues. Firstly, the application was allowed to appoint a representative for the deceased appellant to pursue the appeal proceedings. The order confirmed the confiscation of gold and Indian currency, along with a penalty based on a confessional statement made by the appellant. The questions raised included the admissibility and reliance on retracted confessional statements under the Customs Act, the burden of proof on the appellant, and the nature of evidence required to prove the case. The Tribunal clarified that certain questions raised were not questions of law and dismissed them accordingly. The applicant cited legal precedents to support the argument that retracted confessions without corroboration are insufficient to impose a penalty. However, the Tribunal analyzed the evidentiary value of the retracted confessions in the specific case and concluded that the large body of case law cited was not directly applicable. Furthermore, the burden of proof regarding the source of the acquired currency was discussed, emphasizing the appellant's failure to establish an alternative source despite an initial admission. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no question of law warranting a reference and dismissed the application.