9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby adjudication order was set aside. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent was engaged in the business of electronic items having its shop at Karol Bagh, New Delhi. On 27th May, 2005 Customs officers visited the respondent s business premises and recovered imported items mainly Digital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchased without payment of duty. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously set aside the adjudication order holding that the Revenue failed to discharge burden to prove under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. He submits that the respondent himself admitted the smuggled nature of the seized goods which is sufficient for discharging the onus lies with the Revenue. 4. Lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods were of smuggled nature. So, in view of the absence of any evidence, statement cannot be relied upon. 5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the goods were seized on 27th May, 2005. Shri Dharmi Chand accepted categorically the smuggled nature of the imported goods seized from his shop. He has also stated that the goods of foreign origin were brought from Chenn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods and he has admitted that the goods are of foreign origin purchased without payment of duty. So, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Revenue failed to discharge the onus of burden to prove under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not sustainable. 6. Accordingly, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the order of the original authority is upheld. However, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
