9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mohanty: Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 28.02.2014, passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur-I, wherein the appeal filed by the respondent herein was allowed by setting aside the adjudication order dated 29.09.2007. 2. Heard Shri G.R. Sharma, ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue and Shri Jitendra Singh, ld. Advocate for the respondent. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed Shipping Bill No.1017546, dated 11.08.2003 for export of handicrafts items, namely, three statues and metal brass ports. On examination, the Customs officials detected that three statues were found to be of antique look and accordingly referred the matter to the Archaeological Survey o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation order, the respondent herein preferred an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), which was disposed of vide order dated 28.02.2014 in its favour. Thus, Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent had filed a Writ Petition being No.280/08 before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur against the reports dated 17.10.2003 and 25.09.2006, which was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court on 30.11.2009. In the said order, the Hon'ble court directed the DG, ASI to re-examine the articles in question himself or to get it examined by a competent officer nominated by him. The report dated 06.08.2012 of the ASI was communicated to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... moved. Dr. R.S. Fonia, Authorised Nominee of the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, in the cross-examination dated 27.01.2014 has also stated that The lab to tests showed that the patination was of artificial nature. In view of the above outcome of the examination and observations of the Committee, to my mind, the object should have been regarded as Non-Antiquity as the contents of the examination report and observations made by the Committee appear to be suggestive to categorize the object as No-Antiquity while the Committee has declared the said object to be Antiquity which does not appears to be in conformity with observations of the Committee made after conducting the artistic, archaeological and scientific examination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he object in question nor any show-cause-notice after the issuance of the re-examination report, has been issued to the appellant under Section 25 of the ANTIQUITIES AND ART TREASURES ACT, 1972 by the department. Therefore, the opinion delivered by committee declaring the object i.e. Decorative Female Figure with two hands and legs missing, to be Antiquity appears to be not sustainable and impugned order confiscating the impugned goods as well as imposing penalty on the appellant appears to be unsustainable. Accordingly, confiscation of the impugned goods is set aside and redemption fine and penalty are also consequently set aside. 7. Since the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the aforementioned premise has held that the opinion delivered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
