9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -judicial authorities as discussed in detail in the impugned order that in terms of non-notified items, burden lies on the Revenue to proved legal entry into the country and to show that the goods were smuggled - Following decision in the case of Sultan Dharani [2007 (9) TMI 469 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - There is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue. - C/228-236/2012 - 1650-1658/2012-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 21-11-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. Ms. Shweta Bector, DR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. ORDER All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a at Kishanganj through off route from Nepal in contravention of provisions of law. Proceedings were initiated against all the respondents vide show cause notice dated 12-5-2011 resulted in confiscation of betel nuts along with seizure of truck and imposition of penalties upon various noticees. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. Hence the present appeals by the Revenue. 5. On going through the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), it is seen that he has observed as under :- 6.4.1 This is not the case of the department that at the time of interception the consignment was not accompanying documents. It is admitted fact the department procured the documents from the driver. The impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence in support of the allegations levelled in S.C.N. dated 12-5-2011 that the impugned goods have been smuggled into India through off route. I find that the investigation carried out by the department could not reach a conclusive end to prove the contraband nature of seized goods as there is nothing on record about the 139.73 MT of betel nuts imported vide Bill of Entry No. 2193, dated 18-11-2010 of which the said seized goods are being claimed to be a part. There is no evidence direct or indirect on record to conclusively establish that the seized consignment was imported illegally in contravention of provisions of Customs Act, 1962 rendering them liable for confiscation. There is just no conclusive evidence to disregard and reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
