9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd V.C.R. The Assistant Collector of (Air Customs) inspected all the said items. He granted concession under Transfer of Residence Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'T.R. Rules') in respect of all items including C.T.V. set but rejected the petitioner's claim in respect of V.C.R. on the ground that it was new and less than one year old. 2. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) against the order of the Assistant Collector rejecting T.R. claim in respect of V.C.R. In the appeal it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the purchase voucher dated June 23, 1987 was genuine and the above model of V.C.R. was available in the market for the last three years. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) rejected the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to substantiate his averment that the said model was available in the market three years back. In the result, Government find no sufficient grounds warranting interference with the order of the appellate authority." 4. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the said orders dated September 29,1988 and December 26,1988. In the petition the said two orders have been challenged on the ground as taken before the Appellate Collector and the Revisional Authority. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the V.C.R. on examination by the respondent authorities was found to be brand new without any sign of use. Moreover, it was further found that subject model was launched in the market by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the authorities concerned have considered the voucher at all. They have not disbelieved the voucher. The purchase voucher raises a presumption of the petitioner's possession for the required period. When there is prime evidence of possession of the article for the required period, the petitioner cannot be denied T.R. concession on the basis of mainly its look. It would be paradoxical if a careful owner who keeps his property in very good conditions is penalised vis-a-vis a careless person who treats his property roughly or an unscrupulous person who deliberately imprints 'signs of use' on his (perhaps new) articles. Rejection of T.R. benefit on the ground that the article 'looks new' cannot be sustained without valid reasons and in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
