9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uts, the burden is on Revenue to prove the smuggled nature of goods and circumstantial evidence relied upon by the department not to take place of legal evidence - the appellant produced the Affidavit, which was discarded by the lower authority as the same was not submitted during investigation/adjudication. It is observed that Betel Nuts is being grown in plenty in north-east area of the count ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pankaj Kumar Sharma, the appellant herein. He also stated that he has observed many people bringing Betel Nuts from Nepal and depositing them in the godown. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the 2400 kgs. of cut Betel Nuts valued at ₹ 2,40,000/- and the truck under section 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed Redemption Fine of ₹ 1,32,000/- and ₹ 1,00,000/- re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I find from the impugned order that the Commissioner(Appeals) observed that after the seizure of the goods, the onus to some extent shifts to the appellant and the appellant is supposed to discharge the burden by giving at least some evidence regarding non-smuggled nature. Thus, it is clearly evident that the Revenue failed to produce any evidence that the goods are of smuggled nature, except the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al evidence. It is observed that Betel Nuts is being grown in plenty in north-east area of the country, and in absence of any expert opinion as regards foreign origin of goods, confiscation is not sustainable. The ld.Advocate referred to various decisions as under:- (1) Laxmi Narayan Sharma v. Commissioner of Customs, Patna [2002 (142) ELT 74 (Tri.-Kolkata)] (2) Lakhi Nath Rai v. Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
