9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 - FINAL ORDER NO. 76024-76025/2019 - Dated:- 14-8-2019 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri S.K. Naskar, Authorized Representative for the Appellant Shri H.K. Pandey (Advocate) And Shri Debaditya Banerjee (Advocate) for the Respondent (s) ORDER P.K. CHOUDHARY : Revenue filed these appeals against KOL/CUS(CCP)/AA/612- 613/2017 dated 1 June 2017 whereby confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalty on the Respondents has been set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the Respondents. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that on 11 March 2015 the officers of the P I Br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and imposition of penalty. Hence the present appeals before the Tribunal. 4. The learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the Grounds of Appeal. It is submitted that at the time of interception, the first Respondent did not produce the documents relating to the gold. It is further submitted that the Respondent No.2 had simply confirmed that the seized gold was sold by him, but could not co-relate the documents. It is further submitted that the burden of proof on the Respondents is not properly discharged. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the case, the finding of the Commissioner(Appeals) is reproduced below:- 19. In this case, it is also true tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial number cannot take the place of evidence and cannot be grounds for confiscation of goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. On perusal of the Grounds of Appeal filed by the Revenue and the submission of the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue, I find that the Investigating Officer had not verified the party M/s.XEHAAN Capital Services, who has sold the goods to M/s.Prerak Gems. It is seen that Respondents produced the documents which are required to be verified by the Investigating Officers, which they failed to do so. Therefore, there is no force in the submission of the learned Authorized Representative. The learned Counsel of the Respondent referred to the following cases : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
