9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: Appeal against order setting aside confiscation of non-notified goods due to lack of evidence proving smuggled nature.
Analysis: The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the commissioner of Central Excise, which set aside the confiscation of non-notified goods. The commissioner held that the burden to prove the smuggled nature of non-notified goods lies entirely on the revenue. The goods in question were of foreign origin, but the department failed to provide any evidence indicating that they were smuggled into India without payment of duty or in violation of the law. The commissioner emphasized that the mere foreign origin of goods does not automatically make them smuggled, especially when they are freely importable and tradable after importation. The commissioner referred to a government notification and instructions by the Board, stating that for denotified goods, it is the customs department's responsibility to prove their smuggled nature. The commissioner found no merit in the revenue's appeal as they failed to produce any positive and tangible evidence demonstrating smuggling. The commissioner noted that the matter was listed for a stay but proceeded to decide the appeal itself due to the well-settled law on the disputed issue. The revenue, in their appeal memo, did not present any concrete evidence to establish that the goods were indeed smuggled. Consequently, the commissioner found no fault in the order of the commissioner of appeal and rejected the revenue's appeal. The judgment was pronounced in court, upholding the decision to set aside the confiscation of non-notified goods due to the lack of evidence proving their smuggled nature.
|
