9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt could have obtained the same or made efforts to get the same from the Custom House through which goods were imported. This could have clearly established the case of the department. In our opinion the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct in holding that once the respondent is able to show that the goods were legally imported and he had purchased it from importers and is able to prove the same, the burden of proving that the goods are smuggled shifts to the Revenue which has not been discharged in this case. - C/652/2006 - A/1354-1355/2010-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 3-9-2010 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri R.S. Sangia, SDR, for the Appellant. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. M/s. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 Kg. of yarn, packed in cartons, lying at room behind boiler of the factory (iv) Annexure-D covers 10862 Kgs. of yarn found on sizing creels, numbering 2188 cheese spools. 4. There is no dispute that the goods are covered by the provisions of Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 and therefore the burden to prove that the goods are not smuggled and are duty paid is on the person from whose possession to goods are seized. Respondents contended that the 300 cartons containing 7800 Kgs. listed at item No. (ii) above was purchased from M/s. J.M. Textile Ltd.,Damanthrough Shri Pradeep Poddar (yarn broker) and the remaining quantity of yarn covered under Sl. No. (i), (iii) (iv) above were purchased from M/s. Asu Exim Pvt. Ltd., Sarigam Distt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the above, the person in possession, the respondent has produced a copy of the bill of entry and also has indicated the source of supply and the importer has also confirmed having supplied. Once this has been done by the respondent, the onus shifts to the department to show that the goods were illegally imported and duty has not been paid. Other than the contention that the copies of bills of entry produced by the respondent could not be correlated with the goods because there were no lot numbers and packing details of the goods, there is no other contention by the Revenue. In fact once bill of entry was produced, if the packing list was not available with the department, the department could have obtained the same or made efforts to get ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
