9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otally valued at Rs. 9,35,795.00 under Section 111(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (herein after referred to as the Act ). 2. Principal grievance of the appellant in this case was that the goods seized not being notified goods and Section 123 of the Act does not govern such case, the authorities below failed to consider set of documents before them, but illegally acted to the detriment of justice. A truck bearing No. KA-01 A/6529 carrying 10 packages of Chinese white silk fabrics declared to be handloom saries, two packages containing 539 numbers of Chinese origin make-up pencils and 14 packages containing miscellaneous goods of Indian origin was intercepted at Varanasi by the Customs Authorities, who with the help of sales tax authorities a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bearing or any relevancy to the goods under seizure and the Revenue has discharged its burden of proof by seizure for no documents for which no interference to the appellate order is warranted. Ld. DR relied on the judgments in the cases Nazir-UR-Rahman v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 493 (Tri.-Mumbai), J.K. Bardolia Mills v. M.L. Khunger, Deputy Collector reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 813 (S.C.), Union of India v. Shyamsunder reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 197 (S.C.) and Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 561 (S.C.) = 2006 (77) R.L.T. (S.C.), to support the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that action of the authorities below was justified. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), W.B. reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 307 (Tri.-Kolkata), (iv) Sanjeev Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs (P), Patna reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T. 322 (Tri.- Kolkata), (v) Gul Tara Chand Kripalani v. CC (P), Calcutta reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T. 1021 (Tri.-Kolkata), (vi) J.P. Bearing Co. v. Collector of Customs. Lucknow reported in 1999 (109) E.L.T. 538 (Tribunal), (vii) Ch. Sai Srinivasa Rao v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur reported in 2001 (135) E.L.T. 125 (Tri.-Chennai), (viii) Anand Agarwala v. CC, Shillong reported in 2002 (143) E.L.T. 75 (T) = 2002 (51) R.L.T. 222 (CEGAT-Kol.), which are on the points that in the event of seizure of non-notified goods, burden of proof is on the Revenue to prove that there was illegal import an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
