9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises in Patiala on 17-4-1993 recovered 6 gold biscuits of foreign marks, some Indian currency as well as some gold and silver jewellary. On the basis of statements recorded from the appellant under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and other material, Department issued a Show Cause Notice on 21-7-1993 asking the appellant to show cause as to why action should not be taken under Sections 111(d) and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. By his reply to the Show Cause Notice the appellant denied the allegations. By order in original dated 22-10-1994, the Deputy Collector, Chandigarh adjudicated the matter and directed the absolute confiscation of 6 pieces of foreign marked gold biscuits and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs for dealing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issed the appeal by merely recording that he did not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Deputy Collector. 4. Ld. SDR, Shri Satnam Singh, arguing for the respondents Revenue submitted that the various statements given by the appellant were inconsistent with each other and this clearly showed that the appellant was trying to fabricate evidence and giving misleading statements. On the question of the appellant s claim that he had bought 5 gold biscuits from one Sultani Lal of Standard jewellers, Ludhiana, it was on record that by a written statement dated 30-4-1993 Shri Sultani Lal had denied having sold the said foreign origin gold biscuits to the appellant. However, the other claim made by the appellant that the gold biscui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made the following observations : On going through the case and hearing appellants through Counsel, I hold that there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the order of the Deputy Collector. No arguments rebut the findings in the impugned order, age/illness are not factors to decide revenue cases. Appeal is rejected and disposed off accordingly." 6. It appears from the concluding paragraph of the impugned order that the Collector (Appeals) has not discussed in detail the submissions made before him and has not given any finding thereon. She has merely recorded a finding that he holds that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the Deputy Collector. 7. In Majestic Match Works v. CEGAT, 1994 (70) E.L.T. 529 the Madras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
