9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the case so far as relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that as a result of the search of the business premises of the appellant on 6.1.83 textile fabrics in 38 pieces (124 metres) of foreign origin valued at Rs. 4,825/- were recovered and the same were seized under the provisions of Import (Control) Order No. 17 of 1955 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act. As a follow up action, show cause notice was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why the seized textile fabrics be not confiscated and also why penalty be not imposed upon them. After the usual enquiry, the Adjudicating Authority confiscated the seized textile fabrics with an option to redeem the seized goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on being compared with the other seized goods. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) set aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and allowed the appeal in toto. For allowing the appeal he had come out very heavily on the department and found a number of defects and loopholes in the investigation. To wit, he found fault with the Panchnama as it does not disclose that the officers made any efforts to seize books of accounts or voucher book. The Collector (Appeals) held that since the Investigating Authority failed to seize the books of accounts and the voucher book on the spot, the defence of the appellant cannot be brushed aside by holding that the vouchers so produced during the course of adjudication proceedings were p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant, heavily contended before me that the criticism of the Investigating Agency by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was uncalled for. She further submitted that the observations of the Collector (Appeals) that the investigation was biased is not tenable and the alleged infirmities pointed out by the Collector (Appeals) in investigation were not of such a character as to throwout the case of the department. In reply Shri Tajinder Singh, a partner of the appellant s firm justified the order-in-appeal. 4. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, I find that the infirmities pointed out by the Collector (Appeals) in the investigation are borne out by the record. However, to say that the investigation was biased becaus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
