2005 (4) TMI 360

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ides. 2. Shri U.K. Tyagi, ld. Advocate pleaded that the appellants had purchased Multi-media speakers from M/s. Technocrat System and they have made the payment for these goods through cheques and accounted for these goods in their stock register. The department has seized the goods from their premises on the ground that these were branded goods and were required to be cleared on payment of duty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y. There is no evidence against the appellants that they were aware that the goods cleared by M/s. Technocrat System are liable for confiscation. He relied on the following decision of the Tribunal :- (1) Motilal Padampat Udyog v. CCE, Patna [1998 (104) E.L.T. 39 (Tri.)] Wherein it was held that onus is on the department to show knowledge about non-dutiable character of goods. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er authorities have considered that the appellants were aware that the goods were excisable and appellants were knowing that these were liable for confiscation. 4. I find that the statement of Shri J.P. Aggarwal, Proprietor of the appellants clearly stated that he is not aware about the excisability of the branded goods purchased by him. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that he was know .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X