9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are in conformity with the statutory provisions. However, it is found that the Central Government vide Notification No. 204/84-Customs dated 20.07.1984 had specified cigarettes as the notified goods for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 123 ibid. Since, the disputed goods are notified in the official gazette way back in 1994 and such goods have not been deleted from the list of notified goods through any notification, the scenario of entire exercise undertaken by the department for investigation and confirmation of the adjudged demands will be different inasmuch as under the said statutory provisions, the burden of proving that the goods are not smuggled goods shall be cast on the person from whose possession the same were seized. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29,59,200/- under the reasonable belief that same were brought into India in contravention of provisions contained in the Customs Act, 1962. Consequent upon seizure of goods, the department further investigated into the matter and also recorded statements of various persons, including the appellants herein. Based on investigation, show cause proceedings were initiated against the appellants, seeking for confiscation of the cigarettes and for imposition of penalties. The matter was adjudicated vide order dated 31.03.2016, wherein the cigarettes were absolutely confiscated under various provisions of Section 111 ibid and also penalties were imposed under Section 112 (a) and 114AA ibid on different persons, including the appellants involved in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion as well as the impugned orders have not considered the notification dated 20.07.1984. Therefore, I am of the view that the matter should go back to the original authority for consideration of the notification dated 20.07.1984, proper application of the same to the facts of the present case and thereafter, to decide the cases afresh. 4. In view of above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for a fact finding on the notified goods involved in this case. I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and thus, have not examined the documents/records submitted by the appellants in support of their stand that the disputed goods are not smuggled goods. Since this is an open reman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
