9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chakraborty, Advocate ORDER Per Shri H.K.Thakur This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against OIA No. 12/SLG/2012 dt 23/1/2012 passed by Commissioner (Appeals-IV) Kolkata, under which first appellate authority has set aside the penalty / confiscation and directed to release the goods / sale proceeds to the appellant. 2. Sh. S. Nath AC (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed the release of goods/sale proceeds to the appellant. (iv) That goods of Indian origin were used for concealing smuggled goods & were correctly confiscated under Sec 119 of the customs Act 1962. It was thus argued by the Learned AR that OIO dt 5/5/2011 passed by the Adjudicating authority should be restored. 3. Sh. Arijit Chakraborty (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed the seized goods which was not accepted by the adjudicating authority. 4. Heard both sides & perused the case records. It is observed from the inventory list dt 23/8/2010 prepared by the Revenue & certified by Add chief judicial Magistrate, Islampur that only goods mentioned at serial No. 3,4,& 5 (ie calculators of foreign origin) were notified under Sec 123 of the Customs Act 1962 at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) all other goods of foreign origin or believed to be of foreign origin are not liable to confiscation as correctly held by the first appellate authority. Under the existing factual matrix it can not be upheld that the goods of Indian origin were used for concealing contrabed goods and are not considered as liable to confiscation under Sec 119 of the customs Act 1962. 4.1 However calculators of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The same are required to be returned to the owner / custodian of the goods which in the present case is the appellant. There is nothing wrong in the order of the first appellate authority on this aspect. 6. In view of the above observations, except to the modification made in Para 4.1 above, bench does not consider it necessary to interfere with the orders passed by the first appellate authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
