COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. S.L. TREHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Revenue and the transporter are in appeal against the same order. Accordingly, both appeals are heard together and are disposed of under this common order. Material facts relevant to this case are that Truck No. RJ -14 -IG -3147 of Rajdhani Express Transporter Co. was intercepted when it was carrying goods from Delhi near Chandwaji 40 K.M. from Jaipur on 29 -6 -2002 by Customs Authorities and goods valued about Rs. 10 Lakhs seized. About Rs. 9 Lakhs worth of the goods appeared to be of Indian make and the remaining of foreign make. They were confiscated in adjudication by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The appellant took up the matter in Appeal before the Commissioner appeals, Jaipur. Me held that there is no case made out against the goods which are of Indian Origin. In respect of foreign goods, the Commissioner held that the goods had been notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act 1962 which had the effect of shifting the burden of proof as to legal import to the owner to the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized. Since that burden had not been discharged the, Commissioner held that goods became liable to confiscation. Revenue is in Appeal against the release of the goods of Indian origin, while the transporter is in appeal against the confiscation of the foreign made goods.

(2.) I take up the appeal of the Revenue first. The Commissioner's finding on the goods and the reason for their release are to be found in para 5.1 of his order. That para reads as under : -

(3.) The contention of the Revenue authorities is that the transporter had not furnished the particulars about the consigner or consignee and in its absence they were not able to ascertain details about the manufacture, payment of duty etc. It is being contended that since nobody has claimed the goods and the documents covering the goods are found to be fake, the goods should have been confiscated and the transporter subjected to penalty as done under the original order. As against this, the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the transporter is that the transporter is entitled to claim the goods and it is well settled in Rajeev Kumar Aggarwal v. CEGAT -1997 (94) E.L.T. 76 (Del.) that the Customs authorities were not to carry out any investigation about the ownership of the goods under transport and that when no case is made under the Central Excise Act, goods will be released to the transporter. The learned Counsel has relied on the observation made in para 4 of the judgment which is reproduced below : - "4. It was then not for the Collector or for the Appellate Tribunal to go into the question of ownership of goods. It the Customs Authorities had seized the goods from the Railway Authorities to investigate, if they were smuggled goods and if there was no proof thereof, they ought to have restored the goods to the Railway Authorities. If will be for the Railway Authorities to decide what is to be done with the goods. All observations made by them with regard to the ownership of goods are therefore, set aside. This however, does not mean that we have adjudicated on the question of ownership of the goods, nor that we are accepting that the petitioner is the owner of the goods nor that he was entitled to possession from the Railways. The Customs Authorities will restore the goods to the Northern Railways and it will be for the petitioner to make an appropriate claim before the Railway Authorities to decide the claim of the Writ Petitioner in accordance with Law."