TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (2) TMI 188
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....msp;On information, the Preventive Officers of Central Excise & Customs, Ajmer, searched the residential premises of the appellant on 28-1-1980 and seized the miscellaneous goods valued at Rs. 3,675/- and clothes & hosiery goods valued at Rs. 4.874/- alleged to be of foreign origin. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 4-3-1980 was issued to the appellant asking him to show cause and explain as to why the seized goods should not be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act and why further penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 112, ibid for alleged contravention of Sections 11C, 11D and 11E of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Clause 3 of Import & Export Order, 1955, issued under Section 3(i) of the Import & Export (Con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant and also the statement of the appellant, ordered for the release of most of the goods holding that the same were legally acquired/possessed by the appellant. Regarding the remaining seized goods of S. No. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16 to 19, 24 to 30, 36, 40 to 42, 45 to 49, 57, 58, 61, 62, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73 to 78, 82 to 86 of Annexure A and items at S. Nos. 3 to 7, 9 to 12, 15 to 17, 19 and 20 of Annexure B of the recovery memos annexured to panchnama dated 28-1-1980, the Adjudicating Authority ordered for confiscation absolutely under Sections 111(d)and 118 of the Customs Act, 1962, holding that since these articles were not covered by affidavits of five persons, the same is liable to be confiscated. The Adjudicating Authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to doubt or to disbelieve the same explanation of the appellant with respect to the remaining goods. After perusing the record and the plea advanced by the appellant, and considering the nature and quantity of the goods seized, I am of the view that the appeal deserves to be allowed and there is no reason to disbelieve the version given by the appellant with respect to the goods ordered to be seized, and both the authorities below erred in holding that the explanation of the appellant with respect to the goods ordered to be confiscated was after thought. 6.  Before parting with the case, I would also like to point out that the impugned order-in-original, as confirmed by the appellate court, suffers from the patent infirmities, that ....