SRI SIKAKOLLU PRABAKARA RAO Vs. COLLECTOR OF EXCISE
LAWS(CE)-1986-6-5
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on June 20,1986

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.Kalyanam, - (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras dated 16-12-1985 confirming the order of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Guntur dated 30-3-1985 absolutely confiscating electronic goods, such as National Panasonic Stereo casette recorders, calculators, Hero pens etc., detailed in the original order of adjudication valued at Rs. 17,130 under Section 111(p) and 111(o) besides a penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.)The officers of the Customs and Central Excise, SGCP Unit, Ongole, while conducting patrol duty at N.P. Bunk on G.T. Road on 21-3-1984, intercepted APSRTC bus coming from Tirupathi. The appellant was one of the occupants of the bus and examination of the appellant's suit case resulted in the recovery of electronic goods, calculators, pens etc., in the order in original.
Since the appellant could not produce proper vouchers for the goods in question, the goods were seized under law. The appellant also gave a statement before the authorities on 29-3-1985 to the effect that the goods under seizure were brought by "him and by his friends under baggage receipts and were taken to Tirupathi for sale and as there was no proper market for the goods at Tirupathi, the goods were being brought back. Proceedings instituted after investigations against the appellant resulted in the impugned order now appealed against.

(3.)SHRI Narayanan, the learned advocate for the appellant submitted that in respect of the goods covered by Sl. Nos. 1 and 3 in the original order, i.e., National Panasonic Stereo 2 way 4 speaker
JUDGEMENT_1161_TLCE0_19860.htm

The original authority himself has found that they are cohered by valid baggage receipts. In such a situation, it was urged that inasmuch as, admittedly the goods had not been sold by the appellant and were merely attempted to be sold, the said goods would not be liable for confiscation under law. In passing the learned counsel also assailed the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) dt. 16-12-1985 as factually incorrect. It was contended that the appellate authority under the impugned order has observed:

"The party in their appeal petition accept that the goods under seizure were imported by them as baggage during the year 1983 but were sold within the period restricted under the baggage rules."

The learned counsel produced before me the appeal petition of the party filed before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras and contended that the above observation of the appellate authority is factually incorrect and the appellate authority in confirming the order of the original authority has mis-directed himself with reference to the factual position.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.