Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2007 (3) TMI 471

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een registered. With the permission of Judicial Magistrate, all the goods were detained under detention memo by the Customs officers on 13-7-2001. Later on, the Customs officers filed a report to the Judicial Magistrate. The Judicial Magistrate ordered on 27-6-2002 to customs to dispose of the goods as they deem fit in terms of law. Then on 18-7-2002 the Customs officers seized the foreign marking gold biscuits and jewellery under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. A show cause notice dated 7-1-2003 was issued proposing confiscation of seized gold and ornaments and imposition of penalty. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise by order dated 29-10-2004 confiscated the seized goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....). In support of this, the learned Advocate submits that the appellant produced purchase document which has been verified by the officers as duly recorded in the show cause notice and it was found genuine. He contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the documents on frivolous ground that the bill does not bear the name of the buyer and the description of the goods. He submits that in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Tribunal, the department failed to establish that the goods are of smuggled nature. On the contrary, the appellant produced the document which is genuine and, therefore, seized goods are liable to be returned to the appellant. 3. The learned D.R. reiterates the findings of the Commissioner ....