Appellate scope and admissions in clandestine removal sustained the duty demand while preserving release of seized currency.

An appellate authority cannot disturb relief granted in an adjudication order when that part of the order is not challenged in the appeal; the release of seized currency therefore remained undisturbed. Written admissions made during investigation admitting clearance of goods without payment of duty carried evidentiary value, and the explanation that they were made only to maintain cordial relations was rejected. On that material, the duty demand for clandestine removal was sustained. The order was thus maintained in part, preserving the release of currency while restoring the duty demand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate authority could set aside the release of seized currency when that part of the adjudication order was not challenged in appeal; (ii) Whether the duty demand on alleged clandestine removal was sustainable on the basis of the appellants' written admissions made during investigation.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate authority could set aside the release of seized currency when that part of the adjudication order was not challenged in appeal.

Analysis: The adjudication order had released the currency, and the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenged only the dropping of the duty demand. The appellate authority was therefore confined to the subject-matter of the appeal and could not reopen the unchallenged relief relating to release of the currency.

Conclusion: The release of the currency could not be disturbed and the appellants succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand on alleged clandestine removal was sustainable on the basis of the appellants' written admissions made during investigation.

Analysis: The appellants had written letters during investigation admitting clearance of goods without payment of duty and explaining the cause as financial difficulty, along with an offer to pay duty and penalty. Those contemporaneous admissions were treated as carrying evidentiary value, and the explanation that they were written merely to maintain cordial relations was not accepted. On that material, the reversal of the adjudicating authority's order dropping the demand was justified.

Conclusion: The duty demand was rightly confirmed and this issue was decided against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The order was sustained in part by restoring the duty demand while preserving the release of the currency, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority cannot grant relief against a part of the adjudication order that is not assailed in the appeal, and clear contemporaneous admissions made during investigation can sustain a demand for duty on clandestine removal.

---