9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Infirmities in the first appellate order 2. Onus of proof on goods not being notified goods Analysis: 1. The appellant contended that the first appellate order had two key infirmities. Firstly, a crucial fact regarding distance was ignored without valid reason, despite being on record. The appellant argued that this fact was relevant and material to the case, and the appellate authority erred in dismissing it. Secondly, the appellant highlighted that when dealing with non-notified goods, the burden of proof lies with the complainant. As the Revenue failed to provide essential details such as the origin and destination of the goods, carrier information, and chain of evidence, imposing the burden on the appellant was deemed unjust under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The representative for Revenue countered by stating that no documents were presented during the investigation to prove the distance or the location of the vehicle from the Customs boundary. Additionally, the claimants of the goods were not known during the search operation, leading the authorities to reject their claims. The Revenue argued that the orders passed by the lower authorities were well-reasoned and did not warrant intervention. 3. The Tribunal emphasized that an Appellate Authority possesses extensive powers and should not shy away from examining crucial matters that go to the core of the case. Granting the appellant the opportunity to present evidence and address pertinent facts is essential for delivering justice. The Tribunal also noted a legal precedent highlighting that when the Department fails to establish the chain of evidence to discharge the burden of proof, the appellant cannot be prejudiced. As the Revenue did not meet its onus of proof, the proceedings were deemed legally flawed, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeals.
|
