Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (8) TMI 1159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the transaction. Having failed to do so, they cannot take the plea that the Department has not discharged their onus. In such cases the onus gets shifted from one party to another. When initially the truck was seized and proceedings were initiated by way of Show Cause Notice, it was for the Appellant to counter the same along with proper documentary evidence. If this was done, it can be taken that the Appellant has shifted onus to the Department, and only in that case, the Department has to counter the same to fortify their initial allegations. As can be seen from the factual matrix, the Appellant has failed to discharge the onus placed on him. There are no merits in the arguments adduced by the Appellant and see no need to interfere .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd OIO was passed by the Adjudicating Authority confiscating the goods valued at Rs. 3,42,000/- with an option to redeem the same on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as Redemption Fine. He held that appropriate Customs Duty is required to be paid. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- against the present Appellant. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before the Tribunal. 3. The Learned Advocate submits that the entire case is based on assumptions and presumptions just because the driver fled away and could not show the licit document at the time of interception. This on its own cannot allow the Department come to a conclusion that the goods were being smuggled from Nepal. He submits that the Authorities relied upon som .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty for the Truck to go on Northern direction towards Raxaul to reach Patna. Since Chhapwa is not located between Motihari and Patna, the Appellant cannot claim that the goods were being transported from Motihari to Patna. Hence, it can be concluded that the Consignment was moving from Raxaul to Motihari only. Further he submits that though, the Appellant has claimed that the goods were being dispatched from Motihari to Patna, no transit Invoice Challan was found either with the Driver or in the Truck. The Driver, Rajendra Yadav has submiited that the goods were loaded at Raxaul and were to be transported to Patna. He further submits that though the goods were seized on 12/06/2012, the present Appellant took 25 days to claim the ownership of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . He submits that no such evidence was brought in before the Adjudicating Authority nor the same is the part of the present Appeal. On another query as to the copy of the Sale Invoice by the Appellant while transporting from Motihari to Patna, he pleads that the same was not part of the submissions made before the Adjudicating Authority nor the same is part of the present Appeal. He submits that from the fact that the Appellant was released the goods vide Order dated 28/08/2014 by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Motihari, wherein the Appellant was made to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- Redemption Fine and Customs Duty of Rs. 4,29,032/-, the same shows that the Department has treated the Appellant as a genuine owner of the consignment. He once .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing failed to do so, they cannot take the plea that the Department has not discharged their onus. In such cases the onus gets shifted from one party to another. When initially the truck was seized and proceedings were initiated by way of Show Cause Notice, it was for the Appellant to counter the same along with proper documentary evidence. If this was done, it can be taken that the Appellant has shifted onus to the Department, and only in that case, the Department has to counter the same to fortify their initial allegations. As can be seen from the factual matrix, the Appellant has failed to discharge the onus placed on him. 8. In view of the foregoing, we do not see any merits in the arguments adduced by the Appellant and see no need to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates