9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overed from the premises of the appellant. Revenue made vague allegations against the appellant alleging that these are smuggled-one. In fact, these television sets are having serial numbers and in the case of Samsung Malaysia, it was enquired by Revenue regarding whether these television sets with the serial numbers have been manufactured by them or not. In reply to the query, the same were answe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Suresh Balasubramanian, Advocate for the appellant Shri Manoj Kumar,Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding customs duty and imposing redemption fine and penalty thereon. There are allegation that the goods found in the shop are smuggled one. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on specific informatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, onus is on the Revenue to prove that the items in question are smuggled one which Revenue fails to do so. In that situation, the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On careful considerations of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these television sets have been procured by them from licit means. It is the burden on the Revenue to prove that these television sets are smuggled-one which Revenue failed to do so. In that circumstances, I hold that the appellant is neither liable to pay any duty nor these goods are liable for confiscation. Therefore, no redemption fine and penalty is imposable on the appellant. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
