ORDER
S. Kalyanam, Member (J)
1. The above appeals are filed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Trichy and are directed against the order of Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 29-12-1989. On 28-9-1982 the Supdt. of Central Excise and officers seized saris, textiles and kailies valued at Rs. 7,040/- from the residential premises of Shri SDV Rajkumar, on a reasonable belief that the same were kept for export outside India and formed part of a consignment involved in OR No. 21/82 of CPP/Arantangi. The proceedings instituted after investigation resulted in the order of the Assistant Collector, Trichy dated 1-2-1^)89 exonerating the respondents herein of the charges. The Department preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) contending inter alia that the original authority has passed the order without any territorial jurisdiction and the evidence on record did not warrant giving benefit of doubt to the respondents herein The lower appellate authority negatived the contentions and rejected the Department’s appeals. It is against this order of the lower appellate authority the Department has come in appeal before this Tribunal.
2. Shri P. B. Vedantham, the learned DR referred to the question relating to jurisdiction and also the appreciation of evidence and prayed for remand of the matter for de novo adjudication.
3. Shri Rajkumar, Respondent in Appeal No. C/272/90 appearing in person contended that there is absolutely no evidence at all connecting him with the commission of any offence and the plea in regard to want of jurisdiction is also without any legal basis and prayed that the impugned order may be upheld.
4. Shri Sahasranamam, the learned Counsel appearing for the other respondents reiterated the same contentions and urged that no evidence has been brought by the Departmental authorities to show that the finding reached by the original authority and concurred by the lower appellate authority is either wrong or arbitrary or perverse He further submitted that when 2 authorities have given concurrent findings such finding cannot be normally interfered with unless it is unsupportable by evidence or per se perverse. He further contended that there is absolutely no evidence connecting the respondents with the commission of any offence and the mere fact that the Department entertained suspicion, cannot take the place of proof for fastening penal consequences on the respondents.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. I find that the Department’s case is mainly on the ground that the goods in question formed part of certain goods involved in OR No. 21/82 of CPP/Arantangi. Due investigation was carried out by the Departmental authorities and the result showed that the goods involved in that case were intact and had nothing to do with the goods under seizure. Be that as it may, statements were recorded from Respondents Smt. Daisy Epiphanes and Regina Rajkumar who are mother and daughter and Smt. Daisy stated that the saris were purchased by her on 2-9-1982 vide bill No. 2189 from Kalameena Fabrics, Bangalore and the saris were purchased in connection with Christmas season and ensuring wedding of her grand-daughter. She further stated that she received a sum of Rs. 3285/- as pension for the whole year. Verification was also done by the Department at Bangalore and it was found that the bill produced by the Respondent was genuine The original authority has also found that having regard to the financial status of the Respondents, it cannot be said that the goods in question could not have been purchased out of their income by the Respondents. I further find that Smt. Regina Rajkumar is a Lecturer in a Govt. College drawing decent salary. The allegation in the show cause notice is that the goods under seizure formed part of certain offending goods in a different case cited supra and due verification and investigation by the Department later revealed that the goods concerned in case No. 21/82 of CPP/Arantangi have nothing to do with the goods in question. There is also no evidence on the side of the Department to prove that the goods were kept for illegal export out of India. Even if the Departmental authorities entertained any suspicion that cannot take the place of proof unless there is some direct or circumstantial evidence against the Respondents to prove the offence and for that matter to establish that the goods are offending goods meant for illegal export. Apart from it, I find that the original authority as well as the lower appellate authority on consideration of the evidence has exonerated the Respondents of the charge and such findings cannot be disturbed unless such finding is patently wrong, arbitrary or perverse. In the present case, excepting the seizure of the goods there is no evidence on record at all to connect the respondents with the commission of any offence. The goods were seized only on the ground that they formed part of other offending goods referred to supra, which also on verification was found to be not correct. Purchase of the goods has been established by a bill which also has been found to be true on verification at Bangalore.
6. The plea in regard to want of jurisdiction has no substance in law. It is a well settled proposition of law that want of territorial jurisdiction would not ipso facto vitiate the order unless plea relating to jurisdiction has been taken at the earliest opportunity. I find that the lower appellate authority has found that during the period from 13-1-1988 to 15-2-1989, the original authority was holding the additional charge of Central Excise Nagapattinam Division when he adjudicated the case. Therefore, taking into consideration, the entire evidence on record, I find that there is no merit in the appeal and, therefore, I dismiss the same.
7. Since the cross-objections filed are in the nature of counter to the appeals, these are dismissed as misconceived in law.