Page 198 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

876 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

the passage of time, constraints of storage space for the goods or any other
relevant considerations, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the
goods or class of goods which shall, as soon as may be after its seizure un-
der sub-section (1), be disposed of by the proper officer in which manner as
the Central Government may, from time to time, determine after following
the procedure hereinafter specified.
From this notification it is apparent that gold in all forms, including bullions,
ingot, coin, ornament, crude jewellery is one of the specified goods therein.
9. Further it is observed that the gold was seized on 2-6-1999, the order
of confiscation was announced on 23-3-2000. The aforesaid provision permits the
disposal of seized goods. In the present case pursuant to the said seizure the
original adjudicating authority had confirmed the confiscation whereafter only
the department proceeded for disposal of goods, it being one of the specified
goods, in terms of the notification as passed under Section 110(1A) of the Cus-
toms Act.
10. I further observe that Section 110(1B) of Customs Act provides a
procedure to be undertaken by the proper officers for disposal of the goods. It is
apparent from record that the said procedure was also duly followed by the de-
partment as the inventory of the seized goods was got prepared on 2-6-1999 on
the date of seizure itself. The same was also got verified by the Additional Civil
Judge (Jr. Division)-Cum-Judicial-Magistrate, Bikaner that too twice i.e. on 3-6-
1999 and also on 16-5-2000. Thereafter the impugned goods were deposited in
the Malkhana of New Customs House, IGI Airport, New Delhi on 13-7-2000 from
where the gold was handed over to State Bank of India (SBI) on 20-3-2001 for
disposal which was ultimately sold by SBI on 26-3-2001 for an amount of
Rs. 4,84,545/. This particular perusal is clear enough to show that the disposal of
goods was very much in compliance of the statutory procedure. Otherwise also
there is always a presumption of correctness in the act of discharge of duty by a
competent officer as was held by Tribunal, Chennai in the case of Ajanta Music
Palace v. Collector of Customs reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 414 (Tribunal). There is
no evidence produced by the Appellant to rebutt the said presumption.
11. It is further perused that the order of confiscation of year 2000 was
confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) the order, dated 31-8-2004, it is men-
tioned by the department that at the time of the said adjudication before Com-
missioner (Appeals), the factum of disposal was brought to the notice of the Ap-
pellant. Though the said order is not on record. However, it is simultaneously
not the case of the Appellant that the disposal of gold during pendency of appeal
before Commissioner (Appeals) was ever objected by the Appellant. The said
order of 31-8-2004 was assailed by Appellant before this Tribunal vide his appeal
No. C/254/2005. There also the present Appellant except highlighting the con-
troversy of his mistaken identity had failed to challenge the disposal of the
seized gold.
12. It is coming apparent from the order of 24-7-2015 of this Tribunal
that the order of appeal dated 31-8-2004 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) con-
firming the confiscation was earlier appealed by Shri Badri Narayan Sharma on
31-8-2004 was already assailed by Shri Badri Narayan Sharma and the said ap-
peal was disposed of vide order, dated 13-5-2005. Appellant had put no effort to
place on record the copy of the previous appeal to prove that the disposal of the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  198