2004 (10) TMI 396

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... awal, Member (T)]. The issue involved in this appeal, filed Sh. Vinod Arora, is whether the goods seized from his business premises are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. 2. We heard Sh. M. Venkatraman, learned Advocate for the appellants, and Sh. S.M. Tata, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue. 3. In this appeal, the officers of Customs Department searched the business premises of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he mentioned that the perfumes, seized from its premises, were purchased by him from the person whose name was not known to him. The Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order, has confirmed the confiscation of these goods by the Additional Commissioner holding that as the goods of foreign origin were seized from his premises, the explanation about their acquisition and possession has to co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ated 15-1-1993. 4. We find substance in the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appellant. It is cardinal principle of law that the onus to prove the charge of smuggling is on the prosecution as the goods in question have not been notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, which is an exception to the General Rule, the burden is cast upon the Department to prove that the impugne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X