9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts of transport before the Tribunal as well as the bilties that the goods were being transported from Delhi to Ahmedabad. Further, appellant had appeared before the Customs Department and had claimed the goods. Admittedly, no other person has claimed the goods in question. In view of admitted town seizure, it was the onus on the Customs Department to lead evidence in support of allegation as to the smuggled nature of goods. It is also found from the record that no evidence has been brought on record in support of its allegation. Further, sale-purchase of goods in India is supported by the levy of Sales Tax by the Sales Tax Department of Rajasthan. Accordingly, the order of Court below is vitiated in law and on facts. The respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd accordingly assessed sales tax liability and penalty, which was deposited by the transporter. In the meantime, the Sales Tax Department had informed the Customs Department, that as the goods appears to be imported, they may also make enquiry. That immediately when the goods was released by the Customs Department after payment of tax and penalty on 01.08.2014, the Customs Officers at the gate of Sales Tax Department, intercepted the truck and detained the goods and the truck and brought to their office. Thereafter, after making enquiries the Customs Department issued show cause notice dt. 28.01.2015. In the show cause notice, it is mentioned that the Customs Department have intercepted the truck and the goods on 01.08.2014 itself on relea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded. He inter alia stated that he is looking after the day-to-day work on behalf of his father, who is the Proprietor. It was further stated that till that day, no one has turned up to enquire about the mobile phones, but now the consignee Sh. Dharmesh B. Bhavsar having private marka Kumar DL and DL Enterprises (as mentioned in bilty No. 10256 for 11 packages, bilty No. 10245 5 packages and bilty No. 246 6 packages all dated 01.07.2014, have contacted at their Ahmedabad office with respect to these bilty numbers. Accordingly, they informed the consignee that the goods have been seized by the Customs Department and the matter is pending. Further, he has asked the consignee to approach the Customs Department. They also issued certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porter (i) SVGFC (ii)Sh. Bhavesh Parnami and (iii) Sh. Jagdish Bhai are hereby jointly and severally proposing to confiscate 36 LED TV sets valued at Rs.20,20,400/- and further penalty was proposed on SVGFC to show cause as to why 2287 pcs. of Chinese origin phones having MRP Rs.22,76,743/- be not confiscated under Section 111(b) and (d) of the Act alongwith penalty. Penalty was also proposed on Sh. Kamlesh G. Chandwani and Sh. Niraj Agarwal both employee of Sri VGFC. 8. Addendum to show cause notice dated 05.07.2016 was issued to the show cause notice dt. 28.01.2015, observing that after issuance of the show cause notice, this appellant Sh. Dharmesh B. Bhavsar appeared before the Department and requested for provisional release of 2287 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the order-in-original that inspite of issue of NOC dt. 12.10.2014 by the transporter in favour of the appellant, he did not approach the Department till the issue of show cause notice till January, 2015. The appellant has claimed the ownership of the mobile phones (received through post on 10.03.2015), almost nine months since the seizure initially by the Sales Tax Department and then by the Customs Department. Thereafter, he approached for provisional release of the seized goods after filing Writ Petition No. 7146/2015 before the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan praying for provisional release of the goods. Further, Sh. Bhavsar admitted that he does not have proper sales invoice in support of purchase of goods from open market in Delh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce on record in support of their allegation of smuggled nature of goods. The whole order of confiscation and penalty is bad as the same is based on presumption and assumption, without any corroborative evidence. It is further urged that the goods have been admitted to have been traded within India and the Sales Tax Department had assessed and collected the sales tax alongwith penalty on the goods/ mobile phones in question. It is further urged that the Court below have passed order of confiscation and penalty in a mechanical manner showing non-application of mind. The contention of the appellant is also supported by the documentary and oral evidence led by the transporter Sri VGFC who have also stated that they received the goods at Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
