9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o knowledge . This term is used only when a person is being prosecuted and will be subjected to conviction in which case the prosecution is required to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt (and not beyond doubt) . Nowhere it can be said that the appellant has to prove beyond doubt that he has not committed an offence - appellant or his agent or driver of the vehicle or person in-charge of conveyance did not have knowledge of nature of the goods being transported - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. 1698 of 2012 - Final Order No. 25574/2013 - Dated:- 15-7-2013 - Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, J. For the Appellant: Mr. Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner(AR) JUDGEMENT Four tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra 7(k) of Notification No. 4/2009-Cus (NT) dated 19.5.2009 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Mysore, they were responsible for the safe/secure transportation of goods from ICD Hassan to any other Customs area. They had acted in accordance with the above Notification for the safe transportation of the goods cleared by Customs. 4. On the other hand, the Commissioner has not accepted the above submissions on the ground that same are not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the appellant has no knowledge of the goods being transported. He also used the words the owner of the conveyance has not proved beyond doubt . 5.1. According to my view, the words used in Section 115(2) have to be read to conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the show-cause notice nor any statement of driver or agent or the person in-charge of the vehicle has been recorded. In such a situation, in my opinion, it is not necessary for the appellant to prove that he or his agent or driver or person in-charge of the vehicle also did not have knowledge about contents of the containers. 5.3. The submissions made by the appellant also show that untill the goods were intercepted in the port, nobody seems to have been aware that the goods which were attempted to be exported were Muriate of Potash and not Bentonite Powder. Only on the basis of intelligence, the consignment was intercepted and goods were subjected to chemical examination and thereafter only a conclusion could be reached that the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
