ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. None appeared for the respondents. Shri M.H. Sheikh, learned J.D.R. for the department states that in this case imported goods were seized and the purchase documents produced by the respondents were found to be fake. He, therefore, submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly decided that the impugned goods were not liable for confiscation. He also cites the following case laws in support of his argument :-
(1) Ballav Daga v. Commissioner of Customs -1991 (52) E.L.T. 251 (T) (2) Shri Arjun Das Kabari v. CCE. - 1983 (12) E.L.T. 849 (T) (3) Kamal Jit Singh Chadha & Two Others v. Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay -1986 (25) E.L.T. 1001 (T).
2. In view of the fact that the documents produced by the respondents have been found to be not genuine, the department has succeeded in proving that the impugned goods in question have not been licitly acquired. As such, the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct in setting aside the order of confiscation.
3. Consequently, the impugned order-in-appeal is set aside and order-in-original is restored.