9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal to hear an appeal from a person who is not aggrieved person in the eyes of law in terms of Section 129A and grant a prayer/relief on an appeal of the order which does not cause a grievance to that person? For the sake of clarification, in the instant case, the applicant before the Hon'ble Tribunal construed to be aggrieved only with the imposition of the penalty and not with the order relating to the confiscation of seized currency ?" 3.The facts relevant for the present application are as follows : The Respondent No. 1 is a Company carrying on business of Angadia i.e. the business of carriage of documents and goods. The Respondent No. 2 is a Director of Respondent No. 1. 4.On 26th April, 2001 the Officers of the Marine and Pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... October 7, 1991 was issued to the Respondents, their employee and CM and MP Bankers, requiring them to show cause as to why the Indian currency amounting to Rs. 15,50,000/- under seizure should not be confiscated under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 and why personal penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 6.The owners of seized currency viz. CM and MP Bankers did not participate in the adjudication proceedings even though a show cause notice was issued to them. However, the Respondents in their reply denied the allegation and sought for cross-examination of the assessing officer/investigating officer/panch witnesses. After permitting cross-examination of the officers who recorded the stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove, while admitting the Application, this Court granted Rule only on Question No. 2. 9.Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that the confiscated Indian currency admittedly did not belong to the Respondents and that the Respondents claimed to be in possession of the said currency in their capacity as carrier of goods. Although, it was claimed that the said amount belongs to the CM Bankers and MP Bankers, in spite of the notice, said owners of the currency had chosen not to participate in the adjudication proceedings and claim the seized currency. It was submitted that in view of the admission of Respondent No. 2 that the seized currency represented sale proceeds of smuggled gold and silver, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Steam Navigation Company Limited reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1633, it was submitted that when a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, the said question cannot be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal, notwithstanding that it may arise on the findings given by the authority. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. CEGAT, New Delhi reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 341 (P H) and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ernakulam reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.) and submitted that if the question as framed by the Revenue does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rency represented sale proceeds of smuggled gold and silver which is liable to be confiscated under Section 121 of the Customs Act. It was the contention of the Revenue that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, even though retracted belatedly, binds the Respondents. Under these circumstances it was the contention of the Revenue that when the Respondents have admittedly no title to the confiscated currency and the alleged owners of the currency had chosen not to participate in the adjudication proceedings and claim the currency, the Respondents could not have challenged the order of confiscating the currency. Without assigning any reasons as to why the above admission/statement of the Respondents recorded under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified in setting aside the confiscation order, is a question of law, which does arise out of the order of the Tribunal. In other words, the admission of the Respondents was a valuable piece of evidence and on the face of such evidence whether the Tribunal could have held that the questions raised by the Revenue did not arise out of the order of the Tribunal is a question which requires consideration. However, the questions as framed by the Revenue is not happily worded and does not specifically bring out the real controversy sought to be raised by the Revenue. We, therefore, reframe the question as under :- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the order of confiscation a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
