9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue has failed to produce any cogent evidence that that these goods were smuggled into India and were not procured by the respondents – There is no infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld - The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed – Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No.C/824/03-Mum - - - Dated:- 13-1-2014 - Ashok Jindal, J. For the Appellant : Shri K S Mishra, Additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on payment of redemption fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs.95,000/- on the respondent. The adjudicating authority also asked the respondent to pay the customs duty applicable to this case. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the order of adjudication was set aside. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is before me. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned A.R. s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rranted. 6. Considered the submissions made by both the sides. 7. It is an admitted fact that the goods seized in question are not notified goods. Therefore, the burden of proof that these goods are smuggled in nature is on the Revenue. The Revenue has failed to produce any cogent evidence that that these goods were smuggled into India and were not procured by the respondents. In these circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
