MANORAMA DEVI, SHRI AYODHYA Vs. C.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against Order -in -Appeal dated 16.6.2004 vide which the Order -in -Original imposing penalty and confiscating the goods was upheld.

(2.) THE relevant facts which arise for consideration are that the Customs officers intercepted a van and recovered 17 silver bullion from the body of the vehicle. The occupants of the van could not produce any document evidencing its lawful importation or possession. On recording the statements of the concerned, show cause notice was issued and on adjudication the adjudicating authority absolutely confiscated the silver which was seized and also imposed penalty on the appellants. On an appeal the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on merits as well as on limitation. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that though the appeals were rejected on limitation they are also rejected on merits, and hence, appeals which was filed before the Tribunal are liable to be entertained and disposed of by the Tribunal. It was his submission that silver which was seized by the authorities was less than 100 kilos totally and the weight of the said silver bars was less than 30 kilos as can be seen from the annexure to the show cause notice. It was submitted by the learned Advocate that the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Gopalji Shah v. C.C., as reported at 2001 (137) ELT 325 (T) has held that, Circular of the Board which says that if silver bullions in the form of bars weighing less than 30 kilos and when the total quantity is less than 100 kgs. it cannot be considered as smuggled. He also relied upon the another decision on the identical issue, in the case of Shambhu Nath and Ors. v. C.C., Lucknow, in Final Order No. 1792 -1793 dated 3.12.2004.