| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/3550 |
| Court | Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai |
| Decided On | Jun-10-1987 |
| Reported in | (1988)(38)ELT208Tri(Mum.)bai |
| Appellant | Rajesh K. Bhansali |
| Respondent | Collector of Customs |
Farooq U. Memon on 27.2.1984. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the seizure of 1000 tolas of gold from a German National Mr. Fischer at Sahar Airport on 5.2.1984. The Customs officers conducted investigations and found that the local contact of Mr.
Fischer was with an Iranian National Mr. Col Charity Djabar who had stayed in Shelley's Hotel at Colaba. Investigations further revealed that from this hotel a telephone call had been made to telephone in 91043 which was installed at 55 Embassy Apartments, 291, Boman Behran Marg, Bombay. Further inquiries from the telephone department revealed that from this telephone number some overseas calls had been made in October, 1983. In view of these circumstances, the premises at 55 Embassy Apartments, 291, Boman Behran Marg, Bombay were searched by the Customs Officers on 27.2.1984. The search party was not permitted to come inside the house by Smt. Khatoon wife of Shri Mg. Farooq and Police had to be called to get entry to the house. During the search of the house the Customs officers seized a brown coloured "Echolac" brief case and the same was found to contain semi precious stones of various sizes and weight. Some typed papers were also recovered from the reisence. On the following-day on 28.2.1984 Shri Md. Farooq appeared before the Customs Officers and his statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Further investigations were also made and after holding due enquiry, the Addl. Collector of Customs (P) Bombay passed the impugned order dated 2.8.1984 confiscating absolutely the diamonds and levying a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on Shri Md. Farooq U.Memon under Section 112 of the Customs Act. In addition, the briefcase was also confiscated absolutely under Section 118(1) of the Customs Act.
2. On behalf of the appellants the learned advocate first briefly set out the facts of the seizure as mentioned above. He first explained the resistence by Smt. Khatoon to the Customs officers in not allowing them to enter the residence. Shri Kothari submitted that Smt. Khatoon was a muslim lady observing purdah and she was only 24 years old. As per her husband's instruction she did not want to allow strangers inside the house. But when the police help was sought by the customs officers she did not obstruct the entry and permitted the search to be taken to the residence. The advocate referred to the panchanama dated 27.2.1984 relating to the search of the house. The panchanama shows the seizure of diamonds, zericon jewellery alongwith some documents from the house.
This seizure was under Section 110 of the Customs Act. For seizing anything under Section 110 of the Customs Act, the Customs Officers should have reasonable belief to hold that the goods were smuggled.
When the seizure was made on 27.2.84 Shri Md. Farooq was not in the house. In addition to the search of the house, the Customs Officers also searched the locker but nothing incriminating was found from the locker. Before leaving the house on 27.2.84, the customs officers left a message that Shri Md. Farooq should report to the Custom House on the following day. Accordingly, Shri Farooq appeared before the Customs officers on 28.2.1984 when the statement was recorded. He was asked to come again on 3.3.1984. On this day the seized articles were produced before the Customs Appraiser. In the panchanama dated 27.2.1984 the seized articles were described only as stones and not diamonds. The learned advocate referred us to the panchanama dated 27.2.1984 which described the goods as semi precious stones. He further referred us to the panchanama dated 3.3.1984 which intially described the goods as semi precious stones. However, under the second panchanama dated 3.3.1984, the diamonds were seized once again. The advocate contended that it was not permissible in law to make a second seizure.
Thereafter, a second statement of Shri Md. Farooq was recorded on 3.3.1984. On 19.3.1984 a third statement was recorded from Shri Md.
Farooq under summons in terms of Section 108 and similarly his fourth statement was recorded on 20.3.1984. In these statements Shri Md.
Farooq had deposed that he had obtained the diamonds from the brokers on approval basis. On 20.3.1984, he produced the brokers S/Shri Bhansali and Ravindral Solanki before the Customs Officers. Shri Md.
Farooq had further deposed that he had obtained diamonds for being shown to the representative of a firm named M/s Rehmat & Co., Singapore. He had further stated in his statement that he was a member of the Diamond Merchants Association and of Gems & Jewellery Export Promotion Council. He had also stated that the diamonds were received for being shown to the representatives of foreign buyers. In his statement dated 20.3.1984 Shri Md. Farooq gave the names of the foreign buyers as well as the two brokers from whom he had received the diamonds on approval. However, he had not produced the approval memo for the diamonds in question. The advocate submitted that the diamonds were received on trust from the brokers Shri Bansali and Ravindral Solanki, these two brokers had also come up in appeal to the Tribunal.
In reply to the query from the Bench as to why they had filed appeals to the Tribunal when no penalties were levied on them, the advocate submitted that this was with a view to confirm the appeal of Shri Md.
Farooq. Continuing his submissions, Shri Kothari stated that S/Shri Bansali and R.Solanki appeared before the Customs on 20.3.1984. Their statements were recorded on 20.3.1984 and 21.3.1984. Shri Kothari drew our attention to the salient features of their statements as available in the Paper Book. As per Shri Md. Farooq's statements he had deposed that he was a representative of foreign buyers M/s. Rehmat & Co. and he had produced the two brokers from whom the diamonds had been received.
The two brokers in question had stated that they obtained the diamonds from M/s. Gem Stan Company the appellants in CD(BOM)A.in 6/85. The Customs Officers recorded the statement of Shri PM Thacker on 21.3.1984. Shri Thacker was the manager of M/s. Gem Star Company.
Thereafter they had also recorded the statement of Shri Prasan Manilal Jhaveri on 22.3.1984. Shri P.M. Jhaveri was the managing partner of M/s. Gemstar Company. The Customs officers searched the premises of M/s Gemstar & Co. on 23.3.1984. They found that the diamonds in question belong to M/s Gemstar Company and were given on approval basis to S/Shri Bhansali and R.Solanki. Jangads or approval memos were also produced for inspection by the Customs officers. The originals were available with M/s Gemstar Company. On 16.6.1984 the advocate of M/s Gemstar Company wrote a letter to the Addl. Collector of Custom (P), Bombay explaining the legal import of the diamonds by M/s. Gemstar Company and the diamonds were being given for approval to Shri Md.
Farooq through the two brokers. However, the Addl. Collector did not accept the explanation and issued show cause notice on 12.7.1984 to all the appellants. Shri Kothari submitted that earlier to the issue of the show cause notice the previous Counsel of the appellants had written to the Addl. Collector waiving the issue of the show cause notice. But he had insisted on the issue of the show cause notice on behalf of the appellants. All the same, the show cause notice did not make any mention his letter dated 16.6,1984. However, no reply was sent in answer to the show cause notice but a personal hearing was fixed on 30.7.1984 which turned out to be a formality only. Accordingly on 31.7.1984 the advocate filed a written record of the oral submissions made before the Addl. Collector on the previous day. The advocate drew our attention to the copy of letter dated 31.7.84 in the Paper Book.
Thereafter, correspondence ensued between the Addl. Collector and the appellants and finally the Addl. Collector passed the impugned order on 2.8.1984 which was issued on 19.11.1984.
3. The advocate submitted that Shri Md. Farooq U. Memon's appeal was for release of the diamonds recovered from him and setting aside the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-levied on him. So far as the appeals of Shri Rajesh K. Bhansali, Shri Ravindra Laxmidas Solanki and M/s. Gemstar Company were concerned, they were only parties to the proceedings held by the Addl. Collector and their prayer in appeals was for the release of the diamonds. No penalties had been levied on any of the appellants.
4. The advocate contended that in the panchanamas dated 27.2.1984 and 3.3.1984 the seized articles had been described as semi precious stones. Semi precious stones were not covered under Section 123 of the Customs Act though earlier Section 171 -A of the Sea Customs Act covered other stones in addition to the diamonds. But under Section 123 of the Customs Act only diamonds were included. The Addl. Collector had not led any evidence regarding the origin of the diamonds. Their description in the Panchanama dated 27.2.1984 was as semi precious stones only. The advocate therefore contended that there was no reasonable belief as required under Section 110 of the Customs Act for the seizure of the goods on the part of the Customs officers. In such circumstances, the advocate contended that the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act could not be shifted on the appellants.
The second Panchanama dated 3.3.84 was actually a report regarding the valuation of the goods in the presence of the party. There was no opinion by an expert regarding the origin and nature of the diamonds.
Hence, the burden of proof could not be shifted on the appellants under Section 123 of the C.A. The advocate submitted that he had come across the Tribunal's order in a case of seizure of diamonds in the case of Jayantilal R.Patel, Bombay reported in 1986 (25) ELT 696. In that case the Tribunal had confirmed that the burden of proof had not been discharged by the appellants. But that case was distinguishable from the present appeals following the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Gianchand v. State of Punjab AIR 1962 (SC) 496. In the present case there was no reasonable belief on the part of the Customs Officers in the seizure of the goods and hence the burden could not be shifted to the appellants under Section 123 of the Customs Act. Shri Kothari further contended that the reasonable belief should exist in the minds of the seizing officers at the time of seizure and not subsequently. In this behalf, he relied on the decision reported in 1983 ELT 1966 of CEGAT, Calcutta and 1983 ELT 1715 of Delhi High Court in the case of Shantilal Mehta.The advocate further submitted that there was no expert opinion that the diamonds were of foreign origin.
But the import of cut and polished diamonds was allowed upto 1947 and even now there were two schemes for the import of rough diamonds; one was the REP licence scheme and the other was advance licence scheme under which imports of rough diamonds were permissible against the exports of cut and polished diamonds. Therefore, the cut and polished diamonds were available in India and there was no need for their smuggling.
5. Going into the facts of the case the learned advocate draw our attention to the Collector's findings on page 9 of his order. In this finding the Collector had held that the recovery of the diamonds was made on 27.2.1984 but the seizure of diamonds in the reasonable belief that they were smuggled took place on 3.3.1984. The advocate submitted that this finding was not correct. Apart from this, the Collector was biased on account of the seizure of 1000 tolas of gold from Shri Fischer at Airport on 5.2.1984 and also the resistance by Smt. Khatoon in permitting the Customs officers to come inside her residence. Shri Kothari submitted that Smt. Khatoon did not tender any explanation about the diamonds as she was not aware of the same. The Customs officers were not expert in diamonds and the panch witnesses who were present from the localities were also not from the diamonds trade. The Collector advanced three reasons for holding that there was reasonable belief that the diamonds were smuggled. These three reasons were; sufficient time available to Shri Md. Farooq to satisfy the customs authorities about his source of acquisition, two statements of Shri Md.
Farooq dated 20.3.1984 and 3.3.1984 without leading the customs officers anywhere to the source of acquisition/importation and his inability to produce any documents to the customs. As regards the different versions of Shri Md. Farooq in his statements dated 28.2.1984 and 3.3.1984 Shri Kothari submitted that these by themselves could not mean anything. He relied in this behalf on the decision of the South Regional Bench of the Tribunal reported in 1984 (16) ELT 622. Shri Kothari submitted that the documents seized with the briefcase on 27.2.1984 related to Shri Md. Farooq's dealings with the Singapore firm and the two brokers Shri Raju and Shri Ravindra. The statements of the brokers Shri R.K.Bhansali and Shri R. Solanki had been recorded and they had been admitted giving diamonds on approval to Shri Md. Farooq.
They had also explained that they had obtained them from M/s Gemstar company. The manager of the firm Shri P.C. Thacker and the Managing Partner Shri P.N. Prasan Manilal Jhaveri had been interrogated and their statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
They had admitted the ownership of the diamonds and their stock of diamonds had also been verified to confirm that the seized diamonds were out of the official stock of M/s Gemstar Company. Yet the Collector leived penalty on Shri Md. Farooq under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The advocate contended that it was not clear whether the penalty was levied under Sub-section(1) or Sub-section (2) as the Collector's order did not discuss the circumstances for levying the penalty. He stated that this was bad in law. In this behalf he relied on the Madras High Court judgment reported in 1983 ELT 322. The advocate further contended that it was not permissible for the Addl.Collector to strengthen his case by finding loop-holes in the defence. There was no case for levy of penalty and the amount of penalty was exhorbitant and excessive. Similarly, he contended that the absolute confiscation of diamonds was unjust and requested that the same be released. The ownership of the diamonds had been claimed by M/s Gemstar Company before the Collector and there would be no objection in the diamonds being released to them.
6. On behalf of the Collector, Shri Prabhu submitted that two panchanamas had been made at two different places. The action for seizing the diamonds was in accordance with law. On 27.2.1984 the Customs officers had examined the contents of the brief case before taking over the packets of diamonds and zircon along with the briefcase. The second panchanama dated 3.3.1984 did not amount to second seizure. There were 3 factors which caused reasonable belief in the minds of the customs officers to hold that the diamonds were smuggled. Firstly, Shri Md. Farooq had telephonic conversation with an Iranian National from Hotel Oberoi Towers. Secondly, Smt. Md. Farooq obstructed the entry of the Customs officers for the purpose of searching her residence. Thirdly there was no satisfactory accounts-for-the diamonds available on the spot. Hence the diamonds had been seized correctly in the reasonable belief they were smuggled. In support of his contention Shri Prabhu relied on Government of India's order contained in 1981 ELT 173. He also relied on the decision reported in 1983 ELT 1966 to show that the burden of proof had not been discharged by the appellant Shri Md. Farooq as he had failed to give the names of the owner of the diamonds or the brokers. Accordingly, the Collector had not accepted the jangad voucher which had been produced subsequently and no accounts had been kept by Shri Md. Farooq in respect of the diamonds. On 3.3.1984 Shri Md. Farooq had stated that he would come again on 5.3.1984 but he failed to turn up. He was admitted to hospital on 7.3.1984 and therefore he could have come to the Custom House on 5.3.1984 as promised. Thus Shri Md. Farooq used time for preparing the accounts and jangad receipts which were not serially numbered. The accounts and the stock of M/s Gemstar Company were checked by the Customs officers from February to March, 84 and the accounts were tallied. But it was noticed that for the earlier period this company had not issued any jangad receipts. All these circumstance would show that there was reasonable belief in the minds of the Customs Officers at the time of seizure of the diamonds. In this behalf, Shri Prabhu relied on the decision reported in 1983 ELT 1717. He contended that the Collector had held that the diamonds did not belong to M/s Gemstar Company and that they were smuggled. In this behalf, the statement of Shri Prasan Jhaveri dated 22.3.1984 that the cut and polished diamonds cannot be co-related with rough diamonds imported was very significant. Accordingly, the Collector had held that the diamonds in question were smuggled. Accordingly, Shri Prabhu submitted that the Collector's order of confiscation of diamonds and levy of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on Shri Md. Farooq was correct. As regards the appeals by Shri Rajesh K. Bhansali, M/s Gemstar Company and Shri Ravindra Laxmidas Solanki are concerned, Shri Prabhu submitted that no penalty was levied on them and therefore they were not aggrieved parties and hence their appeals were not competent.
7. In reply advocate Shri Kothari submitted that the Government of India's decision relied on by the Departmental representative was not binding on the Tribunal. In that case, the Government had ordered release of the confiscated diamonds. The present appeals were stronger than the case decided by the Government. The panchanamas dated 27.3.1984 and 3.3.1984 had to be considered to appreciate the contention that there was second seizure on the latter date. Shri Farooq had been admitted to the hospital on 7.3.1984 and this was mentioned in the statement dated 19.3.1984. In the statement of Shri Farooq dated 28.2.1984 he had mentioned names of the 2 brokers. Hence there was no case for confiscation of diamonds and levy of penalty.
8. We have examined the submissions made on both the sides. The main trust of the appellant's argument is that Section 123 of the Customs Act is not applicable to the seizure of diamonds and hence the burden of proof is not on the appellants and therefore the Collector's order of confiscation of diamonds and levy of penalty on Shri Md. Farooq is bad. The learned advocate has further contended that the Collector has no positive evidence to hold that the diamonds are smuggled. Therefore, the main points which fall for consideration in this appeal are: (2) If not whether there is sufficient evidence to hold that the diamonds are smuggled.
Since both these points are inter-related they are being examined simultaneously. The diamonds were seized from Shri Md. Farooq's residence on 27.2.1984. In the panchanama relating to the seizure, the diamonds were described as semi precious stones. The learned advocate of the appellants has therefore contended that it cannot be said that the diamonds were seized in the reasonable belief that the same were smuggled. On the other hand, the Collector has contended that the diamonds were not seized actually on 27.2.1984 and that they were detained on that date only. He has held that the diamonds were actually seized on 3.3.1984 when they were examined by the Customs (Jewellery) Appraiser of the Custom House and found that the seized articles were diamonds and who valued them at Rs. 4,54,416.90/-. The learned advocate has contended that the Collector's finding that the seizure of diamonds took place on 3.3.1984 is entirely misconceived. He has argued that the diamonds had already been seized by the Customs officers on 27.2.1984 and they were in the possession of the Customs officers after seizure from that date. Therefore, it is not correct for the Collector to contend that the seizure took place only on 3.3.1984. There is a good deal of force in the contention of the learned advocate. Before the matter is examined further we would usefully reproduce the relevant extract from the Collector's findings in this behalf.
"As regards the liability of cut and polished diamonds under seizure to confiscation, I find that though the recovery is on 27.2.1984, but the seizure of the diamonds under the reasonable belief that they are smuggled is on 3.3.1984".
Thus, the learned Collector has tried to make distinction between the recovery and the seizure. In the earlier portion of his findings, he has held that the goods in question were only detained on 27.2.1984.
Though he has not specifically stated so in this behalf in his findings the learned Collector seems to have in the mind judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported in 1986 (26) ELT 922. In that judgment the learned Allahabad High Court made distinction between the detention and seizure and held that detention can be for the purpose of making inquiries without making any seizure while in the case of seizure a panchanama is necessary. In other words, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, the panchanama or its absence would determine as to whether a case is one of seizure or detention. In the present case, the Customs officers entered the residential premises of Shri Farooq on 27.2.1984 with the search warrant issued by the Customs officer under Section 105 of the Customs Act. Section 105 does not empower the Customs officers to detain any goods. On the other hand, the panchanama dated 27.2.1984 mentioned that the articles in question and other documents were seized by the Customs officers and sealed. The power to seizee Is given to the Customs officers only under Section 110 of the Customs Act and hence it is Incorrect for the Collector to hold that the goods in question were detained on 27.2.1984 and seized only on 3.3.1984. The appellant Shri Md. Farooq was physically deprived of the possession of the diamonds on 27.2.1984. Since that date the diamonds remained In the custody and possession of the customs authorities. It cannot therefore be said that the diamonds were seized by the Customs officers from their own possession on 3.3.1984. As contended by the appellant the panchanama dated 3.3.1984 was only for the purpose of appraising the value of the seized diamonds by the jewellery appraiser of the Custom House. This cannot therefore tantamount to the seizure of diamonds. Though therefore, the learned SOR has contended that the seizure was made only on 27.2.1984 in the reasonable belief that the diamonds were smuggled, the Collector's findings extracted above are to the contrary and It Is not possible for the Tribunal to Improve on the Collector's findings. It would have been perfectly legitimate for the Collector to hold that the seizure took place on 27.2.1984 but for the reasons best known to him he held that the seizure took place on 3.3.1984. In the circumstances, of the case as discussed above, we are unable to support the Collector's findings.
9. This bring us to the second leg of the learned advocate's argument as to whether the seizure of the diamonds was made In the reasonable belief that they were smuggled. The learned Departmental Representative has contended that the Customs officers visited the residence of the appellant Shri Farooq on the basis of the Investigations made by them pursuance to the seizure of 1000 tolas of gold from a German National Mr. Fischer at Sahar Airport on 5.2.1984. The investigations did indicate a prima facle connection of the appellant Shri Farooq with unsocial elements. The resistance of Smt. Khatoon, wife of the appellant Shri Farooq In preventing the entry of the Customs officers Into her residence was also a suspicious circumstance. But the subsequent finding of the Collector that the seizure was made on 3.3.1984 would cut at the root of the learned Departmental Representative's contention that the seizure was made In the reasonable belief that the diamonds were smuggled.
10. Therefore once it is held that the diamonds were not seized in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled and that the seizure was not made from the possession of the appellant the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act cannot be shifted on the appellant. In that case, the Additional Collector has not adduced any evidence to hold that the diamonds are smuggled with a view to justify their confiscation. On the other hand, even if the onus is shifted on the appellant Shri Md. Farooq under Section 123 of the Customs Act it is seen that he has discharged this onus. On the date the diamonds were seized on 27.2.1984 from his residence he was not present there. He came to know of the seizure from his wife late in the evening on 27.2.1984. Immediately on the following day on 28.2.1984 he presented himself to the Customs officers who recorded his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. In this statement he inter alia deposed that the diamonds were received on approval from the brokers whose names were mentioned as Shri Raju and Shri Ravindra. He had also submitted that he had received the diamonds for being shown to his customer M/s Rehmat & Co. Singapore. He further stated that he had accepted the diamonds on 'oral jangad' and that he did not have any document. On 3.3.1984 his statement was again recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. He repeated his statement that the diamonds were received by him from the brokers S/Shri Raju and Ravindra on 'oral jangad' for being shown to the representatives of M/s Rehmat & Co.
Singapore. However, on this date also he could not furnish the exact addresses of the two brokers. He promised to come again on 5.3.1984 but according to his statement he fell ill and he had to be hospitalised on 7.3.1984. He was discharged from the hospital on 19.3.1984. He again contacted the Customs officers for the return of the diamonds seized from him. The Additional Collector held that during the interval he was able to manipulate the records and ascribe the stock of diamonds ultimately, to the imports made by the appellants M/s Gemstar Company.
The Collector therefore dis-believed his version and held that the diamonds were smuggled. Scrutinising the Collector's findings it is seen that Shri Farooq mentioned the names of the two brokers Shri Rajesh K. Bhansali and Ravindra L. Solanki immediately In his first statement dated 28.2.1984. He repeated these facts In his second statement dated 3.3.1984. However, he could not produce these two brokers immediately before the Customs Officers. But for this reason It is not proper for the Collector to draw an adverse Inference. The Collector has not disputed the facts that Shri Farooq was III during the interval and that he was not hospitalised. On the other hand, he has held it against him that he had come from the sick bed from the hospital on 19.4.1984 to contact the Customs officers to obtain the release of the diamonds. Therefore, any delay on the part of the appellant Shri Farooq is not Intentional and was due to the fact of he was suffering from kidney trouble and a subsequent hospitalisation. He has taken the earliest opportunity of approaching the Customs officers for producing the two brokers before them and explaining the source of his acquisition of diamonds. The Customs officers recorded the statements of Shri Raju and Shri Ravindra L. Solanki and both of them have confirmed that they gave the diamonds to the appellant Shri Farooq on approval. They further stated that they had obtained these diamonds from M/s Gemstar company. The statement of Shri Pravln Thakkar, Manager of M/s Gemstar company and the statement of Shri Prasan Jhaveri, the Managing partner of the same company confirmed that the diamonds were given by M/s Gemstar company to two brokers Raju and Ravlndral L Solanki. The Customs officers verified the records of M/s Gemstar company and came to the conclusion that the diamonds were given to the two brokers and that they were out of the rough diamonds imported by M/s Gemstar company. Thus, a complete chain Is established right from the import of rough diamonds by M/s Gemstar company to the seizure of the cut and polished diamonds from the residence of Shri Md. Farooq.
Thus, even If the burden of proof is cast on the appellant Sh. Farooq he has satisfactorily discharged the same. There are therefore no grounds to hold that the diamonds are smuggled. Accordingly, we find that the Collector's order of confiscation of diamonds and levy of penalty of Rs. one lakh on the appellant Shri Md. Farooq is not correct and we set aside the same. We direct that the diamonds be returned to Shri Md. Farooq and the amount of penalty deposited be refunded to him.
11. So far as the appeals of Shri Rajesh K. Bhansali, M/s Gemstar Company and Shri Ravindra Laxmidas Solanki are concerned, they are not aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Customs (P), Bombay and therefore there cannot be any appeals from these parties. When the Bench questioned the learned advocate of the appellants why these 3 appellants had come up in appeals before the Tribunal the learned advocate replied that this was by way of confirmation of the appeal of Shri Md. Farooq. In law, no such confirmation of the appeal by others is required. Indeed if such confirmatory appeals were permitted, the work of the Appellate Authority would proliferate beyond manageable proportion and the Appellate authority would not be able to dispense justice. There is therefore no substance in the appeals of Shri Rajesh K. Bhansali, M/s. Gemstar Company and Shri Ravindra Laxmidas Solanki and we reject their appeals.