9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the law that in all cases of non-notified goods, the burden is on the Revenue to prove illegal entry of those goods into the country. He would submit that the Tribunal was wrong in observing that it was well-settled law that in cases of non-notified goods, it was for the Revenue to prove the illegal entry into the country . He relied upon the judgment of the Surpreme Court in the case of Collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption of innocence in favour of that person, and in the result prove him guilty. As pointed out by Best in 'Law of Evidence' (12th Ed. Article 320, page 291), the "presumption of innocence is, no doubt, presumptio juris : but every day's practice arising from the recent (unexplained) possession of stolen property, "though the latter is only a presumption of fact. Thus the burden on the prosecutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court in D. Bhoormull, it cannot be said that any wrong principle of law was applied by the Tribunal. 6. It is pertinent to note that initially the case of the Revenue was that the seized goods were not the goods imported vide Bills of entry submitted by the respondent. However, on re-verification, the only discrepancies that were found were regarding the wrong description or incorrect country ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
