DATTA VINAYAK NASIKKAR Vs. CCE & C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TINS is the party's appeal against the above captioned impugned order dated 28.3.1994 Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Pune praying for setting aside the same with consequential relief and for any other relief deemed lit.

(2.) POINT for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to remand the case? I answer it in the affirmative.

(3.) IN the order -in -original, for item No. 6 baggage receipt No. 148818 dated 16.8.1984 was examined that party had already availed free allowance of Rs. 350 at the time of arrival and Rs. 900/ - allowed from the value of Rs. 2500/ - taken for TV imported entire free allowance was consumed, and it cannot be applied to item No. 6, which imported without the cover of any valid document and payment of duty. Regarding item No. 7 it is held that sale of video camera is sold by contravening the condition of sale not before 3 years of import on 16.5.1990 or before depreciation of 50% of the value, goods are allowed under TR. It does not show 3 years old from the date of original purchase by Bansilal Victor the goods depreciated by 50% of its original value. So it is confiscated under Section 111(d)/111(p)'of Customs Act, 1962 with redemption fine of Rs. 5000/ - on payment of duty and penalty of Rs. 5000/ - is imposed on appellant. In the impugned order, item No. 6 finding is confirmed, as at the item of seizure and reply to show cause notice, it is described as personal computer and value is not claimed at Rs. 350/ -. Regarding item No. 7, it is held that before purchase appellant should have been cautious about the legal importation and sale, receipt in that regards is produced 4 months late. It is not held to be genuine, confiscation is upheld. Since Dy. Collector has not mentioned CIF value of the goods on which duty was leviable, matter was remanded hack to him for that purpose. So from the above, it is clear, that the Dy. Collector is seized of the case. As requested by the appellant, regarding item No. 6, which is in the custody of Customs, the actual nature of goods can be assessed, and also valuation as claimed by the appellant or as assessed by the Department. On the basis of the above redemption fine can be fixed, so also the penalty. The contention of the appellant is reasonable and it is accepted. Point raised is answered in the affirmative. Hence I pass the following order.