Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of Customs vs Ramesh Chand on 20 March, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1990(49)ELT494(TRI-DEL)
ORDER P.C. Jain, Member (T)
1. Brief facts of the case are that certain electronic goods such as tape-recorder heads, T.V. Condensers and other goods were recovered from the respondent's business premises. On adjudication, the original authority has absolutely confiscated the goods and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/-.
1.1 In appeal, filed before him, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) has observed as follows :
"After due consideration, I hold that the appellant undertakes repairs work only. While drawing the panchnama, the condition of the goods especially the old and defective one has not been incorporated. No inspection by original authority has been conducted to determine as to how much was stock in trade and not covered by documentary evidence produced by the appellant. No investigations have been done from the author of the Bills produced by the appellant and results thereof considered while passing the order. The order-in-original is set aside for de novo proceeding."
2. In the appeal before the Tribunal against the aforesaid remand order, the appellant-Collector has urged that the order of Collector (Appeals) is without any basis and without any evidence on record. There is no indication whatsoever that the respondent is a mechanic doing repair work. On the other hand, he has categorically stated in his spot statement that he had purchased the seized goods from Delhi for sale at his shop.
The appellant-Collector also refers to the fact that the adjudicating authority examined the goods and found them to be new. There was, therefore, no question of the goods being defective and meant for repair.
3. The appellant, appearing personally, reiterated his pleas which had been before the Collector of Customs (Appeals).
4. I have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. It is observed that the respondent had brought on record certain purchase bills in support of his licit acquisition of the goods. If all such evidence subsequently brought on record by the accused person is to be discarded by the adjudicating authorities, without verifying the authenticity of such evidence or giving an opportunity to the accused to prove it and the adjudicating authority is merely to rely on the spot statement then the very purpose of adjudication is lost. The entire evidence on record is to be considered and discussed. "Justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done" is too well-known a concept to be lost sight of by the adjudicating authorities.
5. Original authority in the impugned order has, no doubt, stated that "examination of the goods shows that all the items are new and do not require any repair as alleged by the party in reply to the show cause notice", but it is not clear from the impugned order that this examination of the goods was carried out by the adjudicating authority in the presence of the respondent herein and whether an opportunity was given to him to prove his contention that the goods were defective. It is a common experience of life, particularly in electronic goods and machinery items, that seemingly new goods may also be defective and require repair.
6. On the overall state of evidence on record and the pleadings made by the respondent before the adjudicating authority, the impugned order is correct in law and on facts.
7. The appeal is rejected.