AMITAVA LALA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is made by a Limited Company and three others. Affidavit of competency is also available in the record.
(2.) BY making this writ petition the petitioner has asked for release of the confiscated goods in terms of the order dated 2nd August 2001 passed by the CEGAT (Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal), Eastern Branch, Calcutta. It appears to this Court that operative part of the order of the CEGAT is as follows: After reading the above observations made by the Commissioner (Appeals), I do not find any infirmity in the same. He has also rightly observed that the smuggled nature of the non -notified items has to be proved by the Revenue by production of concrete evidence and not on the basis of assumption and presumption. As such, I find that by following the ratio of the Tribunal's order, he has rightly set aside the order of the original adjudicating authority. Accordingly, I find that no merits are there in the Revenue's appeals and the same are rejected. All the three appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court:
(3.) THE jurisdiction of the CEGAT was invoked by the Customs Authority against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal). It appears from such order. The original order was reversed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) by holding that there is no positive evidence to prove the goods are smuggled nature of goods. Therefore, the goods in question have to be released. The last paragraph of such order is as follows: I am, therefore, inclined to all the appeal(s) with consequential relief to the appeals. I find that not only the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) observed that goods in question have to be released but allowed the appeals with consequential relief.;